User talk:Gbear605/Archive 1

LessWrong

The article says its a blog. It isnt very clear how it is also a community - whatever that means. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a blog, in that it’s a collection of blog posts. However, the posts are made by whoever wants to, with no primary bloggers, and there’s a community around it. I should explain that more on the page. I’ll try to remember to do that some time in the next couple of days. Gbear605 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gbear605. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Cowen

Looking into the history, I perceive that both you and Santiagobernstein have interacted in the past over Cowen's page. I suggest that you start the discussion on Talk:Tyler Cowen now and not get into an edit war situation. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jmcgnh, thanks for your help. I've started the discussion in this section of the talk page.

Gbear605 (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Dobrik (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JC7V7DC5768 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources don't show he passes WP:GNG. Please provide independent, MORE THAN IN PASSING mentions of David in reliable sources ,at least 3 more should do. Quality NOT QUANITY.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:David Dobrik and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:David Dobrik, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JC7V (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gbear605! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JC7V (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Concord, Massachusetts, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please take a moment to read WP:BURDEN. This means that re-inserting an unsourced edit with the edit summary "Source is easy to find..." is not acceptable. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had made an edit and then forgot to hit the publish button... Whoops. Gbear605 (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you undid my edit on Slate Star Codex?

If that book is going to be used as a source, the information we give to readers should be correct. I fixed the author information. Your edit made it wrong again. The author is not "Scott" even if he were using his pseudonym (and he wasn't using his pseudonym). Mo Billings (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Billings, per discussion in the talk page and doing the right thing to protect people’s safety, publishing the author’s full name on the Wikipedia article is not the right thing to do. In addition, the author certainly is “Scott.” That’s how names work. Gbear605 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the discussion on the talk page and I don't see consensus for omitting the name. "Honestly only dropped part of the name out of fear of being hunted down by his fans"? I assume you are trying to be funny here. Obviously we don't use first names to identify authors. If you are going to undo someone's edits, it is polite to let them know why. I am going to undo yours, as there is no justification for having incorrect author information listed for a source. Mo Billings (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, the system won't let me make the edit. Mo Billings (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why the system won't let you, but the justification is the part before that quote relating to not revealing his personal information, given that it would put his life in danger (he has received a number of death threats before) along with the lives and mental health of his patients. I'd be happy to alternatively remove the book entirely as a source, if you insist that the source must include his last name. Gbear605 (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted at the talk page, that would likely be an WP:NPOV violation. I should also note that article content discussion such as this should happen at the article talk page, not off on a user talk page - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Gbear605

Thank you for creating Goldmeister.

User:Lopifalko, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

WP:NMUSIC says that "Musicians or ensembles ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. ... Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." The only demonstration of notability this article has is the claim of the album at #30 in the chart, for which there is no source, so it is important to source that statement.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lopifalko}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lopifalko (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is fixed now, see Talk:Goldmeister Gbear605 (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margot PL

Re

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/974352671 See the comment and the direct quote in Talk. According to her very recent statement, it is a live name. In short and translated: "She does not care".

-> Check this RS and restore. Zezen (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zezen, Wikipedia policy (MOS:MULTINAMES) still suggests we should use the name preferred by the individual, even if it does not offend her to use a previous name. Gbear605 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notices RE: Discretionary Sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, please note my responses in the BLP noticeboard, which you haven't responded to. Given the time since I initially responded, and the lack of discussion, re-adding the information, with any innuendo and smear removed, is appropriate. Gbear605 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for a response to your intitial post there because another editor stated that he had already removed the offending content. And whether I or any other one editor replies to you is not the test as to whether you may edit war BLP violations into an article. I am going to ask you to remove your reinstatement of that content, and if you decline I may report the matter for enforcement. Please do the right thing while discussion continues. Please review WP:BLP. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I've reviewed the BLP and the information abides by all the relevant rulings. The issue is well-covered by reliable sources, and the information I re-added to the page is a neutral POV, by my reading. Do you disagree? (Feel free to respond on the BLPN, where I've added more information) If you think that this is an issue, feel free to bring it to the administrators, but I don't believe that I'm in the wrong here. However, I'll remove the information from Leon Black's page, in interest of a positive editing community. Gbear605 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove it from the article, the discussion can proceed. If not, I have warned you. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already removed the information. Gbear605 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with William A. Koch. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, had the edit window to fix the references open on on screen while I made the AfD in another, and I didn't think about how one edit would override the other. Gbear605 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoie Palmer options

Would you mind striking the "life partner" here and replacing it with "partner". You may have been mislead by comments from some editors, but the actual quote was "my incredible partner". The phrase "life partner" was not used and I believe it is misleading. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Billings, at this point I don't want to change those options since people have been discussing them. I used the term life partner originally since the first option was the original text from the article. I'll add a note that when (if) an RfC is opened, it should not have the adjective life in the second and third options since it's not supported by sources. Gbear605 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so in [1] Gbear605 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoel Maines

Nicole Maines seem to be a classic grey area. She is notable for transitioning, but changed her name before she was notable because she was so young, but is though incredibly comfortable with her birth name and on multiple occasions has put it in the public domain. This is not someone whose birth name is unknown or someone who has not revealed their birth name, or someone who has asked for their birth name not to be made public.

In Maines case, she clearly has no problem with her birth name being in the public domain and frequently cites it in interviews when talking about her transition. Maines seems to be a grey area not covered by the guidelines.

She has made her birth name notable by using it over and over, and her change of name petition is in and of itself notable material relating to her transition, because of her age at when it was completed, but she didn't actively have her birth name as her legal name during her period of notability.

This is where the conflict on the talk page appears to be stemming from. One side it appears is hell-bent on the blanket removal claiming MOS:DEADNAME supports their position and the other side are clearly hell-bent on keeping it and Cite Maines and sources for Maines' birth name.

I don't think the current discussion on the article talk page will be going anywhere. I think this needs to be called off from and potentially started again at a different place.

Thank you for the sensible and calm constructive contributions you have made. You have helped me take a step back and go hmm both sides have merit and Maines fits neatly through the gaps in the net.

Sparkle1 (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Elliot Page"

Hello this is Hartma9616 I apologize for mis-editing on Elliot Page and I would thank you that your actions were appropriate – I misread the article by Fox News. This will not happen again. Hartma9616 (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernadette Banner has been accepted

Bernadette Banner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]