User talk:Gimmetoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Some thoughts[edit]

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)

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

Halle Berry article[edit]

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, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your questions at RFA[edit]

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)

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

Discographies/horizontals[edit]

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)

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

←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)

You comment on my appeal[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Yvonne Strahovski[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Miranda Kerr image[edit]

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)

Query on AFD statistics[edit]

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)

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

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

 ? 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)
Any possibility you might have a chance to do it? ;) -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
Alright, keep me posted. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Celebrity Names[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 10:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have submitted clarification on this to the officials at Wikipedia. If they feel the format should be as you describe then I will be fine to respect their and your opinion. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlylovemusic (talkcontribs) 10:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Edit warring[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
It also works on my Windows 7 with IE 8. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Then what is the issue? Rossrs (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)

Sortable tables[edit]

Somebody is supposed to mention when a discussion that concerns you is taking place. As other seem to have forgot I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RexxS_behaviour. Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Wrong person.

Gimme, the table seems to work for everyone who has tested it, except you. In the I.T. business, when a function works for everyone except 1 user, we typically figure there's an issue with that particular user's setup. What browzer are you using? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Fix sortable tables[edit]

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)

Can you find it in the ANI discussion? Seriously, I'm way past sleep time. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
ok do it tommorrow then. I happy to wait/sleep too.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

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)

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)

I'm not sure you know this, but...[edit]

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)

No, I didn't know that. Where does this "rule" come from? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
Can you spell out your thought process, or reference policies saying that users cannot warn people? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User page edit[edit]

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

WP:FA[edit]

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)

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

Colton997‎ Coordinated vandalism[edit]

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)

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

BilCat[edit]

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)

It's raining thanks spam![edit]

  • 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)

God's Country Radio Network‎[edit]

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. - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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)
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. - NeutralhomerTalk • 20:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
OK, I just wanted to make sure that after it closed (which was sometime this week) that it wouldn't lose notability. Thanks! :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 20:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
I did have the affiliates on the page, but removed them. I can re-add them to show greater impact of the network. - NeutralhomerTalk • 20:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 20:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Invisible Barnstar.png 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)

Plain row headers[edit]

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)

My concerns about your unblock of TFM[edit]

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)

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

{{Tb|User talk:Gimmetrow}}

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

Review request[edit]

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)

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)

Ref fonts size[edit]

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)

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

Angelina Jolie[edit]

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)

Regarding...[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Jennifer Lopez discography format[edit]

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)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review[edit]

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

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)

Featured pictures at WP:GO[edit]

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

Hi Gimmetrow. I see that your bot clears Wikipedia:Goings-on each week. I have written a script that is used to close featured picture candidates, and was hoping to add the editing of GO to my script. I have added a placeholder comment that could be used for the script. Do you know if this comment will be carried over after GO is cleared? If not, would you be able to make that happen? Regards, Public Juju talk 02:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please 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)

Edit warring at Angelina Jolie[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

Um, OK. Good to see you came around, but you ought to get priorities clear. This project is supposedly about making an encyclopedia. If all the contributors were seasoned academics, we could generally trust everyone to act with some degree of academic integrity most of the time. We don't have that. So if some random editor puts unsourced information in the article multiple times, perhaps even while removing existing sources, and despite requests and warnings to discuss on the talk page, doesn't discuss on the talk page, then we have no reason to leave that questionable info in the article in some misplaced hope that if we leave it in there for a few days or weeks, that random editor will decide to engage and provide sources on the talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The general response is to 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)

The general response is to remove unsourced assertions contrary to existing sources from biographies of living persons and, indeed, from most articles. Any admin who blocks for "3RR" in such cases should re-evaluate their purpose in being involved in an "encyclopedia" project, let alone why they might be admins. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

PROPOSED CHANGE:: Angelina Jolie's ethnicity is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catinthehat93 (talkcontribs) 21:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Single Ladies[edit]

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. JiveshTalk2Me 18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:GA[edit]

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

Lou Ferrigno[edit]

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)

QUIT CHANGING MY STUFF![edit]

I HAVE PROOF THAT KRISTIN ADAM'S REAL MIDDLE NAME IS NICOLE! WHY DID YOU CHANGE IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopardxman (talkcontribs) 13:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

HEY D#@K HEAD! THAT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT SARA WAS A WAITRESS BEFORE SHE GOT HER BIG BREAK. QUIT MESSING MY S$#@! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowleopardxman (talkcontribs) 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

FAC[edit]

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)

Happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia![edit]

Re:[edit]

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)

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)
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)

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)

Reiterating. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Reiterating. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Smiley Award[edit]

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

Smiley.svg
In the interest of promoting good cheer and bonhomie, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

nding·start 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez[edit]

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)

RE: Lopez[edit]

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)

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)

spreading wiki love :)[edit]

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)

Any ideas ?[edit]

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

Jennifer Lopez edits[edit]

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)

Stop your disruptive editing[edit]

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

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

Foof[edit]

[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)

Duplicate ref bot[edit]

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)

Flecking Awards[edit]

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)

Lemonad Mouth Cast Order[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gimmetoo. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletion_requests/File:Selena_and_the_scene_concert_meet_and_greet.jpg[edit]

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

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

Debby Ryan[edit]

Could you please explain why you removed the citation needed tags from the birth date on Debby Ryan? Corvus cornixtalk 05:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

[7] Perhaps you could explain why you added them to begin with? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Because, per BLP, a source is required. Corvus cornixtalk 17:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Debby_Ryan. Corvus cornixtalk 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeniffer Lopez discography[edit]

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)

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

Selena Gomez[edit]

Is there a reason why her relationship with Bieber should be deleted? I didn't insult both of them in any way, and even stated that the rumors were unconfirmed. Levardi (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

AN/I[edit]

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)

Please notify people when you are opening a ban discussion about them at ANI[edit]

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)

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)

Template:ArticleHistory coding request[edit]

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)

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

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#gay-news.com[edit]

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


What do you think[edit]

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)

Do you mean at Talk:Ehsan Sehgal? I'm curious - how did you come to ask here? 05:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dates at Kaley Cuoco[edit]

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)

[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

FA/GA categories[edit]

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)

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)

ArticleHistory question[edit]

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

why...?[edit]

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)

Featured portal process[edit]

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)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Archival instructions is a better link. BencherliteTalk 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
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? --BencherliteTalk 08:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rachael Ray[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) - 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez discography[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

Olivia Munn[edit]

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)

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)
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)

FLC needs botification[edit]

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

Help needed[edit]

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)

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)

An Invitation to Join WikiProject Jennifer Lopez[edit]

JLO.png You have been invited to join the Jennifer Lopez WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Jennifer Lopez. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You. nding·start 08:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:208.127.239.5[edit]

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. ANDROS1337TALK 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Jennifer Love Hewitt: "Perhaps undue weight for Cronin content?"[edit]

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)

How important is the Stern interview? That paragraph seems a bunch of he-said she-denied stuff. It's also puzzling. I don't really understand the sequence with "the pair continued dating, although Cronin believed that Hewitt fell for Patrick Wilson" - was the stuff about the rings in 2000? Where does Wilson fit in? How much from that paragraph do you think is really relevant? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I've gone back and condensed the section with your opinion in mind, thanks. Do you think there are any more improvements that could be made to it? --JustToClarify (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply:[edit]

What are you doing? It wasn't released early due to a leak, it was released in Germany on the 28th, and the US on the 2nd. How am I supposed to see other things you may have done? You didn't use an edit summary saying what you did. And as far as JLO goes, there is no problem sourcing it in the article, as long as its sourced somewhere. — Status {talkcontribs  07:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It was sourced in the article before, but someone went and removed the whole release history section for some reason. Here's one for Sweden that says the 28th. Hong Kong December 1st. — Status {talkcontribs  07:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Fine, I'll respond here. You'll notice that the Sweden one is the same link I put in the edit summary, but I'm not really impressed with it as a source. Likewise with the HK source. 07:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Nov 28th in Germany. It was released on the US on Dec 2nd and in the UK a day earlier. — Status {talkcontribs  07:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Streaming online, isn't the same as being released. — Status {talkcontribs  07:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
And that's the problem. We don't know what date Amazon (or any other website that just lists a date) might be giving. They might mean first authorized availability. They might even be copying what the wiki article says! I tried looking for European sources from before Dec 2 that said Spears or Jive "released Circus today". I found a couple reviews of the album, which is suggestive, but nothing in them that refers to formal release of the album. I did find news reports directly referring to digital downloads in advance of the release date, though. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe try compiling the information to create a "release" section of the article. There's no need to overhaul the lead with a whole bunch of information. Talk about how it leaked, streamed before it's release, and was released digitally before it's street date. It still received its first physical date on the 28th of November in Germany. — Status {talkcontribs  07:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
How do we know that? I was unable to find a source saying that. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Well in that MTV link it says it was streamed online after leaking, and I gave you the sources above for some of the physical dates. And you said there were some news reports referring to digital downloads before the release. — Status {talkcontribs  07:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The sources you've listed (again, also one I mentioned) do not unambiguously and clearly mean physical date. So far, it is reasonably consistent with this potential sequence: 1) leak, 2) authorized digital purchase, 3) physical release everywhere on December 2, and 4) some sites reporting the date of digital release as "release". Gimmetoo (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that's incorrect. There are two sections of Amazon, one is "Music" which includes physical releases, while "MP3 Downloads" contains digital releases. Just check the Femme Fatale release history and many other release history sections. They are very reliable sources for a release. — Status {talkcontribs  07:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You just linked to the FF release history on the wiki page. The Circus page had a similar release history table, but it was removed months ago. You could restore it, but it was rather sparsely sourced. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did. And that's probably why it was removed. I'm showing you that these are sources are acceptable to show a date in another country. — Status {talkcontribs  08:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Gimmetoo you're assuming this. The release date is December 2nd. Xwomanizerx (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Why did you just remove sourced infromation that did not say otherwise? Why did you restore Status' version that claimed without reliable sources that the release date was something else? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

TJRC already said why. And I'm not stalking you, I was going to see if anyone put anything in about her being pregnant yet... — Status {talkcontribs  05:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

TJRC was wrong. TRJC's revert was contrary to the policy I stated in the edit summary. As you have reinstituted it, you cannot claim ignorance of that policy. You have a little less than 25 minutes to provide a better explanation or self-revert. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What you cited yourself: "Citations within each Wikipedia article should follow a consistent style. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it. Do not change it merely for personal preference or cosmetic reasons. Do not add citation templates to an article that already uses an accepted citation format. If you think the existing citation system is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with issues of spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If you are the first major contributor to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article." They were like that before, and you changed them without consensus on the talk page. And since there is a disagreement "defer to the style used by the first major contributor". — Status {talkcontribs  05:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(continued) Excuse me? Who the hell do you think you are? I suggest you watch your tone and stop being so rude to other uses. — Status {talkcontribs  05:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The existing citation system is no cite templates. I made a very time-consuming edit to rewrite a handful of citations to conform to all the others in a well-developed article. TRJC reverted that by undo. So did you. You are both in the wrong. You, however, have been editing disruptively for a while, and this is just one facet. You now have less than 20 minutes to self-revert or provide a better explanation. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I've been editing so disruptively. :L I'm seriously done with you. You never even gave a reason why you did what you did in the first place. — Status {talkcontribs  05:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That artilce was developed with no citation templates. A few cite templates had been added inappropriately. To conform with the rest of the article, I rewrote those. You need to self-undo or provide a good explanation very soon. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There we go! After you explained what you were doing, I can see what you're talking about. You REALLY need to do better edit summaries. I didn't take notice that some were different. — Status {talkcontribs  05:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You shouldn't be reverting without looking at the edit. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I did look at the edit. The edit didn't show EVERY reference in the entire article. Just the changed one. — Status {talkcontribs  05:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
But of course I would after seeing the mistake. — Status {talkcontribs  06:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gimmetoo. You have new messages at Swarm's talk page.
Message added 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swarm u | t 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • and another Swarm u | t 18:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius[edit]

I complained about the exact same problem with Ohconfucius (that he changes yyyy-mm-dd to something else although it was only date format used in the references) a long time ago. Still, he just keeps going on and on, and often does not even reply to any concerns. Any ideas what could and should be done? Nanobear (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to comment here. What's the link to the RfC which (among other things) found no consensus to remove yyyy-mm-dd formats? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates. I think there was another RFC on the same issue too, but it failed as well. Also, these 3 threads contain some background info: [17][18][19] Nanobear (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Damaging articles[edit]

Hi, I see you relinked a whole lot of low-value, excessive wikilinks in an article. Could you please think twice before doing this; perhaps it's part of a campaign against OC's harmonisations of dates in ref sections, which I don't want to get into, but in which your edits have a spiralling ring about them. Tony (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have Gimme's talk page watchlisted: it appears to me that the problem there is that OC (incorrectly) changed the date format in an established citation style, so reverting all of his work is the fastest fix. Expecting another editor to selectively fix that amount of mistaken editing isn't appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Tony, I have no objection to non-controversial cleanup. but Ohcon insists on combining them with other, disputed edits. Ohcon is quite capable of turning off the yyyy-mm-dd format conversions, but doesn't. I see Ohcon has decided to edit war over this issue without discussion. Further discussion there. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No source tags[edit]

Is there any particular reason why you're refusing to link the "sources" of File:Bayswater Road Kings Cross in 1929.jpg, File:Trams on George St, 1929.jpg, File:Tram on the corner of Pitt and Park St, 1950.jpg, and opting to edit-war instead? Removing file deletion tags without first resolving the issue is disruptive and can be a blockable offense. Please link sources and then remove the tags, as opposed to edit-warring. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Gimmetoo[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sucker Punch[edit]

Sucker Punch takes place in 1961. Watch the WWI sequence and take a closer look at the map. In it's upper right corner you will notice a small nazi logo. Below the logo it says "1961". Since World War 1 happened from 1914 to 1918 this means that it's 1961 in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derflive (talkcontribs) 19:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The WWI sequence is a fantasy sequence. It has no bearing on the "real time" that the movie takes place. Millahnna (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In her fantasyworld, Babydoll makes up alternate realities of events that happened in real life. The events in her fantasies happen at the same time as the real world events. She fantasizes about a world war scene in 1961. What do you think, would she fantasize about a World War scene taking place in her future, in her past but just not the right time for World War 1, or did she fantasize about a World War 1 scene in her present?

And ofcourse, don't dismiss the fact that the producer obviously placed it there deliberatly.

Giving you comment some more thought: Her fantasies don't have bearing on the real time?! Have you even seen this movie? Or did you just not understand it? Literally every scene has it's real world equivalent. Babydoll's fantasies are just her spiced up make believe form of real world occurences, from minute to minute, second to second.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derflive (talkcontribs) 19:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The linked production notes just say the film is set in the 1960s (twice). Gimmetoo (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Adding to what Gimme said, while I personally agree with you that Babydoll's fantasies most likely do correlate to the real timeline, for us to state that this is so without definitive confirmation from a reliable source or the film itself (is there a date listed on the form her stepfather is filling out, for instance) violates original research policies. Besides that, it's really not critical to understanding the film's plot in wikipedia terms, where the plot is supposed to give context for the real world information included in the article. for those purposes (as the article currently stands), 1960s is sufficient. Millahnna (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying 1960's is insufficient. It's not. I'm just saying that the movie contains a clue about what year it is. I do agree that this has not been confirmed by any reliable source, such as the producer himself. But if you care to look at that map, you will see that it was obviously a very carefully planted clue by Zack Snyder. Everything about it shouts 'find me'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derflive (talkcontribs) 04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

A few of the sets are actually listed on other pages. See this part of the Grape Street Crips page. It lists multiple sets, as well as on pages for rap musicians who were gang members themselves, it refers to the Santana Blocc Crips, the Nutty Blocc Crips, and even on documentaries it refers to the Bounty Hunter Bloods and Denver Hill Bloods. See The Game, B-Real, and Jay Rock. TomUSA 01:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

JLO[edit]

Thanks for looking out on the JLO articles. :) I've been so consumed with her discography recently, I've never gotten around to checking out her other articles. Why haven't you joined the WikiProject? You seem to be pretty involved (or is it just the vandalism?) — Status {talkcontribs  02:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Experienced Editor[edit]

I hope you don't mind I put a little something on your user page. SlightSmile 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to Article History templates for GA articles[edit]

Hello Gimmetoo. I note that you have been making a number of changes to the Article History of a bunch of GA's that I have reviewed. As best I can tell this is because I have been completing them incorrectly (with the wrong oldid number) but as you have repeatedly failed to provide an intelligible edit summary I have no way of knowing this and therefore learning from this mistake (if indeed that is the reason). Doubtless using an edit summary would also help you to avoid "misunderstandings" with other editors in future. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to drop you a note. The oldids should point to a version of the article rather than a version of the review page. That allows people to quickly see what the article looked like at that stage of review, and generate diffs if desired. In theory the review page won't get many edits after the review is done. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes I can see that now and your reasoning makes perfect sense (I was fairly sure thats what it was). Indeed if I had read the template instructions correctly a year ago I would have known that in the first place. My issue was with your edit summary, thats all. Anyway I have untwisted my underpants and got over myself, apologies for the previous sarcasim. I appreciate you taking the time to correct my errors. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale[edit]

Under Construction is the name of Tisdale's new series with ABC Family that was just announced yesterday. There is a mention of it in the article text, properly referenced. But a lot of people are adding it to her filmography in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. I reverted as much as I could yesterday within WP:3RR. We'll keep it up - possibly the page could be semi-protected for a little while. Elizium23 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dmurpf2997[edit]

Hi, Gimmetoo. Hope you are well. I noticed your post on the above user's talk page, and would like to point out that every image this person has uploaded has been deleted, as they were missing permissions or were copyright violations. You are not obligated as an administrator to act on this finding, but you are missing an opportunity to educate a new user in the use of images on this wiki. There is a boilerplate text available at User:Diannaa/Images that you can use in instances like this. The user has never made a talk page or user talk page edit, so opening the lines of communication may be difficult, but it is surely worth trying. And having a record of attempting to communicate with the user is an important step in removing their editing privileges if they fail to begin to comply with copyright law. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have seriously misread and misunderstood the situation. You should reflect more. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hi Gimmetoo - I really appreciate your contributions and would love to talk to you about an article I'm trying to help with. Thanks for all your fine work!

MerryMary

Marygrieder (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie[edit]

I would like your input on something re: Angelina Jolie. An editor there is very, very adamant that Angelina Jolie Cannes 2007.jpg be included in the article. However, the only place it would fit per WP:Images is the "In the media" section, which already includes Jolietattoo.png. So a while ago I swapped these images to appease the editor, which you reverted.

I don't really prefer one over the other, but maybe you can be persuaded to change your mind. Jolietattoo.png does show three of her tattoos, but not her face, and the "In the media" section only briefly discusses her tattoos. Angelina Jolie Cannes 2007.jpg shows her most famous tattoo as well as her face, which may be preferable. Thanks for your time. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'd say you shouldn't bother, IMHO this is a pointless controversy (actually, not a controversy at all as far as I'm concerned). I believe that the two images can coexist and there is no particular problem of space. When I read "the only place it would fit", I think "says who ?" There's no need to waste time over these two images, especially since the article is bound to develop anyway, thus creating more available space for the various images of Ms Jolie. Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing of Duffy (singer)[edit]

Due to research, Duffy's birth name is Amie Ann Duffy, not Aimee. There was no Aimee Duffy born in Wales in 1984, give or take 5 years. But there was Amie Ann Duffy, born in Bangor in 1984, according to Genesreunited and according to FreeBMD, Amie Ann Duffy was born in June and her mother's maiden name is Williams, which I have read in an interview before, that her mother was Joyce Williams before marrying her dad. Another note, is that the same info comes up for Katy Ann, her twin sister. Luciefan (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I agree with Gimmetoo's revert. The sources you list are not reliable or run afoul of WP:BLP's guidelines on using public records. MTV's profile of Duffy is a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ohconfucius 2[edit]

It seems that the issue with Ohconfucius and date formats still persists.[20] Do you think launching a request for arbitration would be a good idea? He has been given more than enough time to change his behaviour, and he has received more than enough warnings. The ArbCom could perform a thorough investigation then issue the necessary sanctions. Other attempts to solve the problem have not worked. Nanobear (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think arbitration will handle such a situation effectively, then go for it. I'm not that optimistic. 22:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I really don't understand the basis of your question, because it now seems that my edits have become the subject of your obsession rather than some rational and reasonable query. You follow me around as if I'm some sort of vandal. You have objected to ISO formats that I changed, I patiently listened to you and made necessary corrections when shown problematical diffs. I now strenuously try to avoid changing any ISO dates, yet the complaints, instead of diminishing, are increasing in amplitude. You start making wild accusations about me changing instances where "references had retrieved followed by date in something other than yyyy-mm-dd" – I really don't have a clue what you are on about, and you need to be more precise – because it seems you are objecting me changing any date. I don't know quite how you would expect the proverbial omelette to be made without breaking eggs, as it's quite normal for date formats to get changed by the script. In fact, it's the entire raison d'être, As stated at WP:MOSNUM, on my userpage and the project page, date formats in an article need to be aligned to the prevailing one, if any. In this case, the article you point out was tagged {{mdy}} format in August 2010. Its dates were not consistent at the time. My last edit put all dates into mdy, except for the ISO dates that were already there. The whole object of the script is to align them to a single format, except for some cases of immutable dates. Admittedly, I carried out a whole raft of other style-based changes within that edit, but it was in compliance with MOSNUM, and the tag placed there. If, however, you question whether the tag was placed legitimately, or justified, that is outside the scope of our discussion here. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Unbelievable. After 8 months you are still claiming ignorance of the issue? If so, then you need to stop making any edits that have any relation to date formats until you do understand the issue and change your editing and behaviour. Just to break down the one edit you mention:
*Your last edit to Ryszard Kapuściński added non-ISO accessdates. (There are other aspects of that particular edit which are also problematic...)
* Prior to that edit [21] every existing accessdate (ie, dates following the word "retrieved" in reference) was in yyyy-mm-dd format.
* After your edit, therefore, some accessdates were in yyyy-mm-dd format, and some were not. That inconsistency was entirely your doing.
* Furthermore, you have in the past "filled in" references in articles using formats that were not in the article prior to your edit, and then later returned to those articles and made them "consistent" to the format you had just installed, rather than the pre-existing format.
* You have consistently and steadfastly avoided stating the rules under which you edit, so it reasonable to suspect that might continue such edits
* Hence, it is reasonable to suspect that you are likely to come back to articles like Kapuściński in the future and change the formats that existing prior to your edit to match the format you installed on the article.
* This pattern of editing, after a promise eight months ago that you would not change any accessdate formats, is not just problem editing, but problem behaviour.
Enough is enough. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, enough is enough. Showdown at sundown? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have asked you repeatedly to bring your editing into compliance with MOSNUM and DATERET. It appears that asking is insufficient. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, I ask you again: will you or will you not change your editing behaviour on your own to bring it into compliance with guidelines? Will you ever state clearly the ground rules under which you are editing? Will administrative actions be necessary for you to change your behaviour? You said your userpage says "date formats in an article need to be aligned to the prevailing one, if any". Although I do not find such text on your userpage, it might be taken as implying that you edit according to that rule. What does "prevailing" mean to you? Does it mean the pre-existing or established style according to the rules outlined in DATRET? Or do you only recognize a "prevailing" style if every single reference is written in one style without exception and without bare URLs? Do you even follow that? I have pointed out numerous cases where you have not followed the existing date format. If you do not respond on-point, I will take your non-response as your agreement that you are indeed editing in violation of DATERET and MOSNUM. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Anastacia[edit]

Apologies if in the process of reverting vandalism I reverted links you'd corrected--unintended collateral damage. Cheers, 76.248.149.98 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

October bot[edit]

Hi, Gimme ... it seems that the end of October archivals didn't get botified (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2011). Would that be because of the colons in the article titles? I see you're still doing the good battle here :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WRONG[edit]

Block me if you will, lady, for this. It seems that in your obsession to nail me, you failed to notice that the article was in the "wrong" date format, or you probably don't care because you want to put the frighteners on me.

FYI: MOSNUM says: Do not use year-final numerical date formats (DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY), as they are ambiguous: "03/04/2005" could refer to 3 April or to March 4. For consistency, do not use such formats even if the day number is greater than 12. and WP"CITE says: Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD, because of the ambiguity concerning which number is the month and which the day. For example, 2002-06-11 may be used, but not 11/06/2002. The YYYY-MM-DD format should in any case be limited to Gregorian calendar dates where the year is after 1582.

I am not, therefore, in violation of policy or of any guideline. Now please tighten the leash around your rottweilers. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I will not put words into your mouth, but since you have sidestepped ever stating the ground rules under which you edit, it is difficult to guess what you might be doing. Will you clearly and directly state the ground rules under which you edit? Do you have a guideline-based explanation for this one, where you both installed new date formats, and changed some of the existing date formats? Gimmetoo (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What happened here?[edit]

Er what happened here [22]? From what I can tell, you later change was correct since you aren't an admin. Did you forget that you weren't an admin or get confused by what was meant? Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the past on your user page about it being an alternative account. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hi - your closure of a topic at ANI has been reverted you might want to participate.--Tachfin (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Admin qstn[edit]

Gimme, what was Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-05/Special report? I'm going to save all the remaining pieces offline now, but that doesn't provide history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a draft by Skomorokh originally at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-28/Special report. It looks like a sketch of some sections and ideas (phrased as questions) about Gardner's presentation. Had 28 revisions, last version had about 7k of text and formatting. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Gimme-- that one wasn't problematic like the others, appreciate it. I suppose they'll just move to more IRC conversations and offline work now. Has always bugged the crap out of me that my work and opinions are on-Wiki, FAC doesn't operate backchannel, but others do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sobieski[edit]

It looks like you want be satisfied no matter how strong proof I give. Removing a strong source that clearly gives her age as 28 without even comment it. At least I don't remove the sources that incorrect gives her DOB as 1982. Molgera (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Doon School[edit]

Gimmetoo, the article was passed by its primary author, and the actual GAR hasn't even started. I'm reverting you because of that, hope you understand. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you do. Thanks :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez removed notable content.[edit]

Hi..you took out a section (and you moved "Fashion" Into personal life..and it should be under "Image"). Also, if you were around or new about JLo years ago you know the amount of media attention focused on her body and rear area - that info needed to be there. Also - i didn't write a general statement about being thin in hollywood - it was from an interview in which Jennifer was asked about the subject, and responded saying that she felt as long as you are healthy. Jennifer's personal views should be included. Also Why would you put "Fashion" under "personal life" makes no sense. Sorry i just felt i had to add something there about her image/perception etc. I don't mind about the images, its fine you removed them. But also have the courtesy to maybe write on my wall if you had any concerns. It takes a bit of to find the sources etc and its very easy to remove it. So please atleast tell me as i spent time writing it and have the cortousy to let me know. If certain sources are inappropriate for wikipedia remove it (and you said the only sourced (well) thing was about her losing weight etc). Its very discouraging for someone who is trying to add content (just remove the things that aren't sourced well, but LEAVE the rest) appose to someone who is just removing content everyday. :\ don't respond to this to list why i was wrong - because i know why (the images, some of the content didn't have good enough sources etc, but there was some stable information about her body etc and others looking about to her image. Go look around at other wikipedia pages there is ALOT of content like that). I just think you go about it the wrong way. I only had good intentions in adding the content and i felt like i was intruding. (in future don't just do that to sections being added maybe just split the information instead of removing the lot). Yes i know this is wikipedia but its also about community. THankyou. SoapJar21 Talk To Me 15:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, avoid about.com, popeater, and blogs as sources. One of the refs mentioned some "online poll" without giving the publication that performed it. I recall an agreement a while back that discussing her rear was tabloid material. I have not had time to look through the fashion part in detail. The sources there looked a lot better. The second paragraph of it presupposed knowing about an ex-husband. Some would probably fit better with the other fashion-related content under business. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually - About.com is a perfectly fine source. Popeater wasn't good. I wasn't aware i used more then a few blogs because i know they are no good. Well it is a very notable subject and should at least be mentioned in personal life (her rear and body shape) if you didn't know. I feel like not touching the Jennifer Lopez article anymore, so please find another spot for Fashion it makes no sense whatsoever being placed under personal life. Maybe you yourself could add some more content then which you find justifiable. Wikipedia is a community it needs positive delete(rs) but needs more positive contributors. SoapJar21 Talk To Me 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar.png


The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your work towards saving Muhammad Iqbal from pirates. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that the people at that external site have no idea that their misappropriation of our licensed content could have cost us that content, but it works out that way all the same. Proper attribution is generally all it takes to avoid this (I say generally, because I've seen stuff at WP:CP that was attributed). :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bold titles[edit]

Please stop deleting Bridgit Mendler's bold titles. it is very necessary in her article and I'm sorry about the TBA. I just wanted to expand her page. 125.237.123.182 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts about "interpretation"[edit]

You know, I've been editing Wikipedia for a while, and while I'm not a particularly prolific editor, nor am I an expert, I kinda get the way things work around here. And I actually thought about expanding my edit summary, because I already thought I knew why you had made your edit; unfortunately, it occurred to me too late (have you ever wished, as you watched your browser thingee spin around, that you could abort a Wikipedia edit); I had already hit "enter". Anyway, it's probably for the best; I couldn't have fit these thoughts in an ES anyway.

And I'm placing them here, instead of the article talk page, because it's really not about the article, it's about interpretation.

So anyway, I totally understand the logic of your edit; "interpretation" is not something we want to do as Wikipedia editors--it violates the very essence of WP:NPOV, right? But in my personal opinion, WP:NPOV does not preclude the application of common sense. Let us say that a movie had 1000 reviews, and 997 of them announced it to be the worst movie of all time, two said it was horrible, and one said it was the greatest movie ever made. My question is, would you (speaking specifically to you, Gimmetoo) object in that case to including the phrase "it received generally poor reviews"? If you would, I know you are not alone, but I and many others would respectfully disagree. The purpose of our neutrality policy is to keep from pushing a POV. I respect that as completely and totally as any editor here. But if over 99% of the reviews are negative, I am not lending my interpretation to the article by characterizing the reviews as "generally negative", I am merely reporting reality. Now you can argue, with perfectly intact logic, that it is not necessary to characterize it at all, that all I need to do is to report the number, and the reader will draw his own conclusions. My objections are two: First of all, whether you mean to or not, if you do any editing around here at all, you are lending interpretation to all kinds of things, it just isn't as obvious.

  • With this edit, you actually decided that this kid shouldn't be described as a "singer", even though she's had a song make it on the charts. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying you exercised a little interpretation based upon common sense--after all, if she's primarily employed as an actress, and has had only one song chart, and it's only made it to #90 . . . But hey, by removing that from the lead, aren't you deciding for the reader how she should be characterized? Is that your place as a Wikipedia editor?
  • In a different sort of situation, in this edit, your personal interpretation of what constitutes proper style was to cut someone else's plot summary short. Another editor might argue that this violates WP:SW. Same sort of thing here. Ridiculous, you think? Sure, but there's no denying that you made personal decisions based upon your interpretation of what is supposed to be in the article. Most importantly, you decided what it was that the reader should be told. Is that your job as a Wikipedia editor?

As I'm sure you realize, I completely agree with your edits in the above--or, to put it more accurately--I agree with the thinking behind them. And this brings me to my second objection. We are editors. From time to time, we need to make decisions for the benefit of the reader. One reader who may need my help as an editor is someone inexperienced with the internet and/or Wikipedia. Possibly a youngster, or perhaps someone very elderly who is just learning to navigate the internet. Why is this relevant? I'm imagining my 83-year old mother (who just got her first computer a year ago) using Wikipedia to decide whether to rent a movie from OnDemand. She's never heard of Rotten Tomatoes, and she was befuddled by numbers even before the days when she was befuddled by everything. Sure, she can read your edit. But my edit serves her better because it summarizes the facts, and it's completely true. A movie with 3 negative reviews for every positive review does have generally negative reviews. Is that my interpretation? Yeah, it is. But I challenge you to find a single source that would have a different interpretation than that. It's just plain common sense to readers--that is, it's completely comprehensible to the people we're writing for. In short, I think it's better writing. We are, after all, writing prose around here. If we lose that, we might as well look forward to the day that machines will write this for us.

Back to the topic: At what point would it be "common sense" to characterize a negative percentage as "generally negative"? Damned if I know. 51% negative? To me, characterizing a movie with 51% negative reviews as having "generally negative" reviews is going too far. But it's not up to me. That's what we have talk pages for.

Anyway, this entire post is moot, because I don't have to interpret anything. Rotten Tomatoes gives me all I need to avoid inserting my interpretation right here. But I don't think it'll make for the most encyclopedic writing (ahh, but there I go with having opinions again).

Hey, buddy, obviously I got to look at some of your contributions. You're a pretty impressive force for quality around here, in a way that I will never be. (You are an administrator, aren't you?) It's an impossible thing to wish for, but I do wish you could just not react positively or negatively to my words right away. Because if you're like 90% of us humans, (yes, that was WP:OR) your initial response will be to immediately, mentally compose your retort. I wish you could just dwell on this for a few days, because (judging from your edits) your belief about this matter is a pretty established part of your creed. Me? I'm a lot squishier on stuff like this. Most of us old farts are like that. Anyway, that's my wish, that you could actually consider my viewpoint on this, despite the fact that you're clearly a lot more important around here than me. Regardless, no harsh feelings (despite the diatribe). See you around (and check out my new version of the edit in question on this whole matter; is this better? No interpretation by moi!) HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It took a while for me to get to this view. It started with the phrase "... received mixed reviews..." which can apply to anything and so says nothing. I really dislike that one. I just don't see much value in saying "generally favorable" or whatever, when we immediately say "% favorable reviews at rottentomatoes" . RT has its own simple binary interpretation, which I guess is OK. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Neutral_language_in_critical_reception and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Neutral_language_in_critical_reception for some current discussions on this issue. 16:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hudsucker Proxy[edit]

You reverted me without a coherent edit summary, which prompted me to revert back – indeed, I missed the sentence fix. However, please explain why you removed the interwiki link to the closest definition I could find. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proxy is a fairly ordinary English word. If you really think it needs linking, then wouldn't wikt:proxy be the obvious choice? 21:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you looked at both definitions? It's an honest question, since there is nothing in wikt:proxy that is relevant here, but wikt:patsy is right on the money. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and wikt:proxy is the most relevant to defining "proxy". Linking "proxy" to something else would be a surprise. 23:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Emeli Sande[edit]

Emeli Sande was born in Sunderland. Yes she said she was Scottish, because she see's herself as scottish as she moved there at a young age. When she was in an interview talking about her new album, she said "He’s from Zambia and he and mum got together in the 80s in Sunderland where I was born."

Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

--ƒɾɛɛᴅᴑᴍºᵀᴬᴸᴷ 17:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
And other sources say other things. Did you read the talk page of the article? Did you respond regarding the conflicting sources not4ed there? 02:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Ho![edit]

Thanks so much for picking up and completing the citation-template formatting work on Ramones. I was wondering if I was going to have the strength. Cheers! DocKino (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gimmetoo. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guerillero | My Talk 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Restored filmography[edit]

I don't understand what the redlink State of Georgia town is, when State of Georgia (TV series) is already in the filmography. A TV movie or just inept editing by anons again? Elizium23 (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking rather than simply reverting like some other users do. The anon editing broke the table, and looking only at the diff I didn't see the redlink. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

date format[edit]

Why are you changing dates to an ambiguous format? Does 2012-01-02 mean Jan 2 or Feb 1? It is not obvious. From the same article that you cited in your edit comments comes this: "Year-initial numerical (YYYY-MM-DD) dates (e.g. 1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences." I reverted some of your changes based on this and strong national ties. BollyJeff || talk 15:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dates in the format yyyy-mm-dd are allowed. MOSNUM explicitly allows them in the references, and explicitly says that the format used in the references need not be the format used elsewhere. WP:DATERET says to retain the existing formats of the article. Here is the article prior to the inappropriate date format edits. Since that format is allowed and is clearly the established format of the article it should be retained per DATERET. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
What a silly policy that is; let's keep it like it is, even if its wrong? That same policy also says "unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic". Indian actors should have dmy, due to British influence according to WP:STRONGNAT. And why would you want to mix styles anyway? Why does WP:DATERET trump WP:STRONGNAT to you? BollyJeff || talk 01:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
How, precisely, is yyyy-mm-dd "wrong" for accessdates and publication dates? Some people prefer to help distinguish types of information by using different formats for them, and different formats are explicitly allowed by MOSNUM. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have already answered your questions, but you do not answer mine, so have a nice day. BollyJeff || talk 05:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
We're not done here. I have answered your questions. If your apparent understanding of "national ties" meant that absolutely every date not only in the article text, but also in the references, had to be in something other than yyyy-mm-dd format, then MOSNUM would be contradictory in explicitly allowing yyyy-mm-dd format in the references. Thus, "national ties" cannot apply to the references in the way you apparently think. Notice the phrase "within sentences", when discussing yyyy-mm-dd formats. Can you explain yourself further? Or will you undo your inappropriate changes? Gimmetoo (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I will undo my change if you answer one question. Why is it important to have year-fist in the references? The reason I need to know is that other editors are going around changing them back and thinking it is right. They cite a policy that all date formats must be matching throughout the article. Please explain thoroughly why you need this year-first, not just because it is allowed. BollyJeff || talk 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
yyyy-mm-dd format distinguishes one type of dates from another type of dates. It aids the reader. If you don't agree with that reason, others don't agree with your reason for changing all the dates to one format. That's why we have the guideline saying to leave well enough alone. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't change it back at this point. There are other changes that have gone in on top. I have a script to get rid of ISO dates, but not one to put them in. Obviously other editors have been hard at work making scripts to undo what you are doing. BollyJeff || talk 13:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem, back to established formats. I'm curious that you note editors "hard at work" to inappropriately and unnecessarily change the established forms of articles. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
See User:Ohconfucius/script BollyJeff || talk 14:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Your point? 14:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
This is where I got the script that changes ISO format (ymd) to dmy or mdy. BollyJeff || talk 14:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Which script did you use for these edits? BollyJeff || talk 04:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Emmure[edit]

Excuse me!!! This is Dan Steindler (Original bassist of Emmure) I was there from the beginning and you can ask anyone of the members now!! Who are you to take my credit from all the years I've been with them?I have pictures....videos and the respect from everyone in the band and i dont need to concern myself with stupid trivial issues like this.I know who i am and everyone else that watched us could back me up.One more thing...I'm on the demos!!! Dansteindler (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)DAN STEINDLER

Nobody is taking away anyone's credit. But the major sources about the band don't mention this. Show a decent source that says this, and having it in the article won't be a problem. Enough fans try to list themselves as members of their favourite band on wiki. I'm sure you understand that some sourcing is expected. 01:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Emmure edits!!![edit]

Stop editing my credit out of this page!! This was a part of my life and who are you to be the judge of these events!! And I am not a fan. I am and always will be one of the forming members!! Dansteindler (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansteindler (talkcontribs) 19:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick question....Why are you obsessed with having me prove over and over and over again that I was in Emmure when it's blatantly obvious that I was because I wouldnt continuously take time out of my day do this if it was not true and my second question is this..... Who are you and what makes you the judge on whether or not I get my credit that I've respectfully earned??!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansteindler (talkcontribs) 19:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I think you deserve this wonderful barnstar for helping out Wikipedia so much!! I'm sure that Wikipedia honors your great work and talents, so except this barnstar please!! RomeAntic14 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

I'm having trouble seeing the change you recently made as anything but unnecessary. When I go to edit an article and click the "cite" link to add a reference, it automatically fills in the accessdate as "day month year". This is the default on Wikipedia! The examples shown in the main citation template also show that date format. In addition, the {{cite news}} template even goes further to say you should "write out the month in words" to "avoid ambiguity". When I go to WP:DATERET, it says the date format chosen by the first major contributor should continue to be used. Well on 10-01-07, the first date was posted as October 1, 2007. I would think we should be using that format if not the one I changed it to. GoneIn60 (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The default is what the article has. DATERET says to retain the existing format: "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." What was the existing format of the article [23]? The existing format for the accessdate is clearly yyyy-mm-dd, and that should be retained per the guideline. The "first editor" is only a fallback when the existing form is not clear. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's a valid point. Prior to your February 27th copy edit, the count was 11 to 6 in favor of your position. It was pretty close, but I won't stand in the way of changing it back if you feel it's necessary. GoneIn60 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Smile![edit]

A Barnstar!
A smile for you

You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.137 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hey Gimme, I could use your opinion on this issue: Talk:Lemonade Mouth#No Lemonade Mouth 2, since you edit the article a lot. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gimmetoo. You have new messages at Talk:Lemonade Mouth#No Lemonade Mouth 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QuasyBoy (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate?[edit]

What makes this revision "inappropriate"?—Kww(talk) 01:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

[24] You are banned from my talk page. If you violate that again you will be blocked without further warning. As to your question, a user made an inappropriate style change. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not arbitrarily change from one to another without a damn good reason, such as strong national ties to a style, which doesn't apply here. That you reinstated such an style change is all the more inappropriate. 03:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
No talk page ban applies to normal administrative actions, such as questioning why an editor was removing another editor's edits without discussion, especially doing so twice without adequate explanation. This is, by nearly any measure, edit-warring, plain and simple. I reinstated the change because it was not vandalism, and you had treated it as such. Do not remove non-vandalism edits from articles without an edit summary, and hopefully a much better justification than that you want to prevent any changes to an articles appearance.—Kww(talk) 13:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
You have no administrative role here, and your pretense to have one, especially in this case, is offensive. You edited in violation of guidelines. Do not post here again. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Scroll?[edit]

Are you sure about this? What it says (all I could find) "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show" should not be used for this purpose or that. What I used doesn't use "hide" and "show", so it doesn't apply. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not sure of the exact meaning of "reference lists". Anyway, I'm not going to fight over this one, so do as you wish. I just was making more space, something massive articles like that could certainly use. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Commas are stubborn things. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

OhC[edit]

OhC is hacking at YYYY-MM-DD in accessdates again --JimWae (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Liam Hemsworth[edit]

Please don't change the format of dates. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this article.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. --John (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have examined the article, and I find no basis in fact for the template, let alone the inappropriateness of templating a regular without inquiry or explanation. User:John is required to provide full and complete justification for this template. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is the diff, to facilitate your introspection. You seem to have changed predominantly dmy dates into ISO ones, with a misleading edit summary. Was this you sneaking a preferred format into an article, or another of your guerrilla reverts? Either way, don't do it again, please. An issue like this isn't worth deception, snark or misusing your revert button on. --John (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Your explanation fails. The article had mixed type and I reconciled them. Since you templated me, I can not assume you don't understand the guideline. If you cannot provide a full and complete explanation, then I will expect an apology, both for the apparently inappropriate templating, and the apparent personal attacks and threats. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems very important to you to be right here. I think your behaviour was disgraceful. I believe your interpretation of the guideline is wrong and certainly removing good faith edits along with edits which you believe contravene a stylistic guideline is stupid. Think for a moment of our users, who are unlikely to care as deeply as you seem to about a minor formatting issue, but will, if editors behave as you have done, care about the degradation in quality you seem to accept as collateral damage in winning your ridiculous format war. It isn't rocket science. If I see you again reverting or undoing edits in a way which degrades the quality of articles, I predict you will be unhappy with the consequences. Never do it again. This conversation is now over, at least as far as you and I are concerned. --John (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I note your failure to explain your accusations, and I note your threatening me in retaliation for questioning your apparently guideline-violating and disruptive editing. Do not post here again unless you have an apology to transmit. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to restore removed comments from somebody else talk page and can be perceived as disruptive editing. Please do not do so again.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Point taken, but recall that I queried User:John about his editing. User:John is an administrator, and "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct" (WP:ADMINACCT). User:John repeatedly removing my queries doesn't seem to me to be in accord with that. Likewise, per WP:TPNO, user:John may not make personal attacks on his talk page, and may not misrepresent the record of a discussion. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If you feel that John has acted inappropriately, the correct response would be to file a report at ANI. One should not respond with provocative actions that may escalate a dispute.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:John[edit]

If I may make a suggestion, you may find it easier to approach the discussion at User:John's talk page with more tact if you take a break from the issue for a few days. I'm not sure what history there is between you two, but your approach to that discussion comes off as unduly combative. Remarks like "John, thanks for finally responding and engaging discussion" and "Please demonstrate that immediately" (emphasis mine) do not reflect well on you, nor do they constitute an example of how we as volunteers engage with our peers. The issue is hardly urgent, and I think you both should make a point of cooling off. I make the assumption that you are responding to him in this way because you are annoyed at his actions, and that you do not usually interact in this manner. AGK [•] 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Having subsequently noticed this, consider this a warning about your conduct in relation to John. You are surely aware that other editors have sole discretion over the contents of their talk pages, and taking it upon yourself to revert the owner's removal of your comments is so combative that it borders on disruptive. AGK [•] 23:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:AGK, how would you feel if a query about an edit got factually incorrect statements and charges of vandalism in response? [25] How about if after questioning the factual basis of the previous statements, and ignoring the attack, your integrity was maligned? [26] Or if an administrator then threatened you in retaliation? [27] Is that "an example of how we as volunteers engage with our peers"? Or are these an "optimal approach"? [28] Are you really saying the a user may retain false statements and personal attacks on a user talk page, and remove replies that point out those statements and attacks, misrepresenting discussion? Why or why not, User:AGK? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

Hi Gimmetoo, I've asked a question at AN, could you take a look? I have to say I'm disconcerted about the timing of this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What about "the timing" makes you "disconcerted"? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, because it appears you are currently in a dispute with some editors, some of whom could be considered Jack Merridew's "allies" (for lack of a better word). As far as I know, he hasn't edited in approx. 1 month. So I ask, why bring this up now? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you're implying. This user has a 7-year history of disruption and yet another set of socks was discovered a few weeks ago. When should we discuss it? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd say we should discuss it if there is something urgent about it. Now I've answered yours, can you answer mine please? Why did you bring this to AN today? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Because today I had time to write up the question. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Britney Spears[edit]

Notice to Gimmetoo & GoingBatty: I just noticed the two of you have made conflicting edits on this article and I thought I'd flag it to your respective attentions before there's an edit war. The date formats in the references in the article was changed by GoingBatty to use long date format (e.g., "November 5, 2011") and Gimmetoo reverted it back to strict numeric ("2011-11-05"). I suggest the two of you hash out which way you want the dates to look outside of the article. Tabercil (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Megan Fox article[edit]

Hello, Gimmetoo. I'm not sure if you're still watching this article, but would you mind keeping a close eye on it if you aren't? I've seen crap and unsourced information being added to it lately, and of course have reverted each time. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Merridew[edit]

He's back, editing as User:Br'er Rabbit. See my talk page. Raul654 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gimmetoo. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

THEXFALLEN[edit]

Hi Gimmetoo, just so you know, I've blocked THEXFALLEN for 24 hours for the BLP vandalism you reverted combined with this response to your polite notice on his talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Eminem[edit]

I have recently requested a Good Article Reassessment on this Good Article. If a Community Reassessment is created, feel free to join in. --George Ho (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Katie Holmes[edit]

I'm not sure If you actually looked at anything before complaining. The first part I took out was unneeded. Why state thatTom and her are married but state it in the infobox? It was a single sentence. The next part I removed were ERRORED source. The last part was unsourced and not true. Please refrain from leaving stuff on people's talk pages until you actually look. Thanks. --MrIndustry (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Cao Lanh and others[edit]

Hi there, greetings. Sorry to bother you, a bit of not totally ancient history. I noticed this too and contacted Graeme, and he gave a friendly answer. He's just doing his (unpaid) job as admin. I didn't see your earlier report until I went to Graeme's Talk to see what form the request he got was.

[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] These articles were part of a move discussion at Talk:Cần_Thơ, which found no consensus to move the articles. You shouldn't have moved them. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
You can move them back yourself as it will overlay simple redirects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My question is why you didn't move them back yourself? Were the redirects edited in such a way as you couldn't, or did you not try? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It was partly to educate Graeme about the move requests. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay. It seems at the time that Graeme was right, you could have reverted, the redirects weren't edited/locked until I started questioning the same moves 30 June 2012, 16 March 2012, 30 June 2012, 18 March 2012, 28 June 2012, 30 June 2012. In any case Graeme could not have known there had been an RM since, my eyes boggle, Kauffner deleted the Talk page bot link to the failed Can Tho RM before approaching Graeme for an "uncontroversial move" eg. here I can hardly believe this because it looks like it was a deliberate attempt to hoodwink an admin contrary to an RM decision. Did you notice this when you contacted Graeme about it? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Both I and Kauffner participated in the move discussion at Talk:Cần_Thơ, and I've warned Kauffner before about moves. I am aware that all but one of the articles in that move discussion have since been moved, and mostly by Kauffner (directly or by proxy). Gimmetoo (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know, but did you notice what I have just noticed, that the Talk page link to the failed RM was deleted immediately prior to contacting Graeme, that's the eye-boggling thing. I now see it looks like Thái Nguyên 27 August and Thanh Hóa 27 August the same thing happened before contacting admin Edgar181 for two other towns. I have just left a note on his talk page asking him to verify who exactly requested the uncontroversial move. It isn't normal to delete a bot link to a failed RM before requesting an admin to move is it? At least I've never seen it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think I noticed that. I was trying to get notices on the talk page before the moves so interested parties could discuss them. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Huh. Well, okay I have notified both User:Graeme Bartlett and User:Edgar181 now. Ultimately they as the moving admins are the ones directly affected by delete of the link to RM on Talk. The stupid thing is that apart from cultural items like the 5 Vietnamese food moves being reverted via WP:RM currently I'm not even convinced that Vietnamese towns should have Vietnamese names, I just don't like seeing the editors who actually created the articles getting railroaded. I should thank you, if you hadn't picked up on this RM I probably wouldn't have caught the the deletion of the bot links. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I just caught your comment at Talk:Ca Mau. FYI I informed Kauffner of the discussion on Graeme's Talk page after Graeme confirmed the source of the G6 dbmoves requests. I didn't realise that G6 dbmoves, in this case 626x, self delete from the requester's edit history; that seems to be something of a technical loophole. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Remains in deleted contribs, so it's not gone. Note that the RM for Can Tho closed 7 August. Kauffner kept referring to Talk:Ngo Bao Chau for a while when making requests, not noting any contrary results. After 2-3 weeks, Kauffner went to referring to WP:NCGN. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling. KarlB (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sean Combs GA nomination[edit]

Hello, Gimmetoo. Did you have a chance to read through my reviewer's comments on the GA nomination page? There's only a couple of things that need to be resolved before the article is promoted to GA. The article deserves promotion; it's very good. You have done much to help it along yourself, and it can only reflect well on you to have this article at GA. Could you please stop removing the nomination? -- Dianna (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am the primary editor of the article, and I do not think it is GA quality. You have not addressed any of the sourcing/content issues I raised. (And there are more than I have already mentioned.) The general problem is the removal of significant material. Some of that was done in stages so you may not have noticed, but you did remove a number of sources. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The article will pass GA in its present form, once the material on the GA review page has been dealt with. I did remove some unsourced and poorly sourced material as a way to improve the article so that it could pass GA. One thing I removed was chart perfomance of various songs that I couldn't find sources for. Sources can surely be found, but this kind of material makes for boring reading and is better suited to the articles on the individual songs anyway. Leaving it out makes a better article. -- Dianna (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple problems with what you said. First, some of the things removed may not have had inline citations, but they were easily verifiable. Second, some of the things removed were sourced. And many sources have been removed. Those are not improvements. And by the way,[34] [35], you removed yet more sourced content ("keys to the city") when 1) the AP title is easily found, and that's the essential material, and 2) this was discussed on the talk page months ago. What is your explanation for missing this: "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." Gimmetoo (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You have done some good things to the article, Diannaa, but the sourcing and content issues are still not addressed. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gimmetoo. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Good articles.
Message added 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

GAlisting[edit]

I hope you are not done working on the listing, because there are still numerous issues. For example, why do some random articles have an asterisk before them? Also, why are there still numerous Grey's Anatomy characters not in the Grey's Anatomy series group? Another issue is that Awake (TV series) is listed under Awake episodes, and Britten family isn't grouped with it. It's looking good, but these issues are problematic. TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 01:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

GAN page[edit]

Please, keep that "Episode" bot start there. It will screw up the bot if you change it. Warn the bot's owner, or the bot itself before doing that. Screws up everything. TBrandley 02:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But because you repeatedly undid what I was doing now I don't know if the bot handled what I had set up or not. This for keeping the data inconsistent so that the debugging could not come to resolution. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
If I don't, the GA bot itself will undo your edits. Let the bot and its owner know before these changes. TBrandley 02:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
You realize the bot maintains a separate page, right? Is it not possible that the "problem" is having the pages inconsistent? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you realize that the GA bot is changing it back to the way it was, right? TBrandley 03:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course I do. I also know that you kept changing ti. You kept interfering. You fix it. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Contact Chris G, the bot owner. How can I fix it, I'm not an admin, and can't make changes to the bot format. Also, I'd suggest letting people know on the talk page for WP:GAN (WT:GAN). TBrandley 03:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I was attempting to trick the bot into handling the change. If the bot was going to undo the change, then you didn't need to. Nevertheless, you repeatedly interfered. You can fix it now. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to old tricks[edit]

I'm afraid this User is evidently not going to listen. The immediate response to Dennis Brown's closing of the Sockpuppet investigation yesterday was to immediately move and strip Vietnamese text from another biography and to resume editing redirects. A clear signal that he intends to continue regardless. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Who are you to talk? You add diacritics to the French titles all the time. I was never worried about SPI. I felt sick for a while and yesterday I felt better. You know that giving out daily reports on my activities could come under WP:HOUND. Kauffner (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
@Kauffner
Who I am to talk is someone who goes by the RM process as per three RMs in right now. I have never edited as an IP or under any other log-in, I have never used a G6 to proxy an admin in support of WP:FRMOS, nor have I ever locked a redirect.
@Gimmetoo,
Sorry but this is more or less what I expected. Having got away with IP-puppeting 12 RMs, deleting notes of previous lost RMs, undiscussed moves to c.1000 articles, hoodwinking admins by G6 proxies for another 700 moves, and locking redirects to prevent other editors reverting, canvassing WP:Conservatism, misrepresenting sources, and all the other tricks, he's then going to be threatening anyone who opposes his edits with WP:HOUND. This User needs needs some accountability. Otherwise we need to create a new barnstar, for showing the finger repeatedly to the entire community and getting away with it repeatedly. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My account[edit]

Just in case I wasn't clear: I am not accepting the proposed restrictions, and frankly I'd rather have my account deleted. Kauffner (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jinnah[edit]

I trust we will work congenially on Jinnah with an eye to returning it to its former FA status despite any unrelated disagreements we have. I am respecting your edits and am aware of your history editing the article. I will probably polish the prose and standardize the refs (I hope that won't be a touchy point) and if there is something that we disagree on, I will bring it here or to the aritcle talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

KMFDM FAC[edit]

Hi there. I saw you undid the bot's edits for that page a couple times. Was it malfunctioning? —Torchiest talkedits 04:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Some quirks, yes. 17:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Demi Lovato lead image[edit]

Hi Gimmetoo, I'd like your opinions at Talk:Demi Lovato#Edit warring over image in infobox, please. Discussion has stagnated there although the image is still being changed quite a bit, and I am trying to get folks to go on record with some opinions and discussion. Thanks in advance for your input! BigNate37(T) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Cite_quick[edit]

The current status is to use Template:Cite_quick (even faster!) for pop-culture articles, due to the pending hold in the WP:TfD rejection of Fcite_web. The following options seem to work well, to put "{cite quick|web}" or "{cite quick|news}":

Change all {cite web|...} to be {cite quick |web|...}.
Change all {cite news|...} to be {cite quick |news|...}.
Change all {cite book|...} to be {cite quick |book|...}.

Currently, {cite_quick} is the compromise, because people complained that other fast-cite templates did not list the parameters not supported, so {cite_quick} was specifically documented to list all parameters in use. For that reason, it was not rejected, and it meets the concerns of people who wonder what parameters might not work with each template. As a result of the compromise, {cite_quick} runs 10x-12x times faster than {cite_web}, or about 2x faster than {Fcite_web} which, however, does support more rare parameters not used in pop-culture articles. For medical articles, we will need to get approval to use Template:Fcite_journal, because too many rare parameters are used in medical articles, not supported by {cite_quick}. Long term, {cite_web/smart} should replace all other 1.1 million {cite_web}, but it is stuck in TfD:

Thanks for taking time to fix the pop-culture articles. It really helps when the vast readership is able to see 10x-faster edit-preview sessions, and it helps avoid frustrating delays which might tempt them to give up trying to edit those major S-L-O-W articles. Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The first "official announcement" of {cite_quick} occurred on 10 August 2012, almost 3 weeks ago, for wp:CS1, after 5 weeks of discussing other types of faster templates. Per the current wp:CONSENSUS, agreements should be reached by "compromise" between opposite viewpoints, where people express concerns, and those are addressed, by a middle-ground compromise, in the next iteration. See Help_talk:
The prior talks had involved the typical wish for "lite-templates for {cite_web} or {cite_news}" where the term "lite" means less than the full, heavy templates. However, remember that the current 23 forks of {cite_web}, {cite_interview}, or {cite_podcast} are also being constantly discussed, for changes, so {cite_quick} is just one among many of various wp:CS1 templates in use. People who dislike some of the other 23 forks, are also likely to blame {cite_quick} for confusion, and then the alternate style wp:CS2 uses Template:Citation. However, in the compromise, several of us did not consent to being stuck with the same S-L-O-W templates, so there is no consensus to reject the faster templates, except {Fcite_web} is specifically on hold, at the moment. Ironically, it is a violation of wp:CITEVAR to remove all cite templates from an article without prior discussion, or change to another style, but NOT a violation to use other templates of the same wp:CS1 format style, with dots "." between parameters and semicolons ";" between authors. For that reason, {cite_quick} is allowed for use, so long as the displayed format is the same as wp:CS1 style of {cite_web}. However, there are people fighting against {cite_quick} and against several other {cite_x} variations in use, which have several parameters not supported by {cite_web}, as true forks (incompatible) with {cite_web}, plus people who want even more incompatible parameters. There are many ongoing debates, and when people realize the proposed Lua script cite-module forks have many different glitches, then the confusion will be even worse. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For catching my omission! Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Just so you know Talk:My Linh. I didn't deliberately pick her as first on the list because it was the one you particularly mentioned, it was the red dress... :) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi. I'm a contributor to Nas and noticed your removal of the logo. I don't disagree with it, but the editor that added it (and some other logos to articles) seemed to take issue when he thought someone removed it before from that article, and so he ended up reverting my edits entirely. Could you explain to User:Djjazzyb why the logo is not acceptable? Dan56 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Theatre, film and drama" GA section change proposal[edit]

Hello, Gimmetoo. I've proposed some changes to the "Theatre, film and drama" section at GA, and I noticed you voice some similar concerns. You can find and comment on my proposal here: Wikipedia talk:Good articles#.22Theatre.2C film and drama.22 section change proposal. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

ISO edits by Ohconfucius[edit]

He has made ISO edits in well over 60 articles since August 31. The ever-growing list is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens&action=edit&section=1 70.253.78.85 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gimmetoo. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:GA#.22Theatre.2C film and drama.22 section change proposal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Wikipedical (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


Hey I'm not familiar with how to message people on Wiki. I have a degree in General Mathematics and I am confused why you reverted the change I made in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability_(Texas_hold_%27em).

I suppose my change could have been wrong, maybe I missed something, but the first probablity I changed from 16:1 to 17:1 is simple to check using a calculator.

1 / 16 = 0.0625
1 / 17 = 0.0588

For the second change: In the other examples you are putting the total cases on the left, and the probability that those cases happen on the right.

2:1 means it will happen 1 in 2 times or 1/2 = 0.5 ( 50% )
220:1 means it will happen 1 in 220 times or 1/220 = 0.0045 ( 0.45%)
1:1 means it will happen 1 in 1 times or 1/1 = 1 (100% )
0.417:1 means it will happen 1 in 0.417 times (impossible)or 1/0.417= 2.43 (243% )?
1.417:1 means it will happen 1 in 1.417 times or 1/1.417= 0.705 ( 70.5% )

Is this wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marler8997 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

1:1 "odds" is even odds, 50%. each way. 2:1 "odds" means for every two times one way there is one the other way, ie 1 in 3 times. There is a note in the article text visible when you edit the "Starting hands" section explaining this. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh I see now. I was confused because of the 4.25:1 case, but it looks like you have fixed that to become 3.25:1. Sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marler8997 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


Anastacia[edit]

Sorry my friend,regarding Anastacia i found that here http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discograf%C3%ADa_y_Ventas_Oficiales_de_Anastacia

Thanks in advacne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastacia599 (talkcontribs) 20:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided is to the Spanish wiki. Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources for information, because anyone can change them. Worse, this is a page you have edited, and it had 2000 before you edited it. So all it indicates is that you are putting this information elsewhere on the web, but it still doesn't have a source that the English wikipedia would treat as reliable. At least 2000 has "some" sort of sourcing, even if I don't consider amazon and allmusic particularly good sources.

So let me make this completely clear - do not restore your unsourced information again without prior discussion, ideally with me. I will tell you what sources are usable. I can assure you that there is no experienced editor here who would treat that es-wiki page as a usable source for your changes here. If you make this change again without discussion and agreement, you will simply be blocked from editing. Discuss first. Provide a source and get agreement. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dont be angry. I still dont understand how to proper edit something, or to talk about something. I dont know where I can talk on wikipedia. And I dont understand why are you angry and why you can add something and if I add it I will be banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastacia599 (talkcontribs) 15:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

FPOC revert[edit]

Hi Gimmetoo, I was wondering about this revert. No issues, just curious why you reverted the bot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

IDiscussions that are tagged closed are not processed for further work. If there is further work to do they must not be tagged. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, and what further work is needed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The bot processes details of the featured processes, including talk page template management and front page atar. 23:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Which begs yet another question... why wasn't that stuff done the first time the bot went through? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
In this case, because that FPOC was at a non-standard title, so I had to manually fix it. 23:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Nablus (1918)[edit]

Hi, Can you reconsider cutting the GA symbol from this article? Well after the GA was awarded, Jim Sweeney began cutting one subsection of the background section which the editor who awarded the GA has no problems with. Jim Sweeney has instigated and declared an edit war where one does not exist. The article is not unstable, I have been reinserting the same information which Jim Sweeney has been cutting, as part of a negotiating strategy. The reason I have persisted is because I think its wrong that one editor could censor an article and get away with it. Could you please reconsider your actions as no edit war exists, although Jim Sweeney wants to make his censorship look like it. --Rskp (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Page protected, both editors warned. It is an edit war, although not an especially fast one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your protection of Dylan and Cole Sprouse[edit]

First off, I want to thank you for protecting the article in the first place. However, I was wondering if the protection length could be shortened, and I was told to contact you about it. I understand that the article has been protected for long lengths of time in the past due to persistent vandalism (likely due to the fact that they were on a popular Disney Channel series). Since their series' end, the vandalism due to that has died down. The recent onslaught of vandalism was in reaction to an event that happened on the 17th (Cole controversially deleting his Tumblr), and I feel that would die down in way less than a year, the current protection length. Are you willing to reduce the length at all? - Purplewowies (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Information[edit]

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions to Elen[edit]

Thank you for asking those questions to Elen. I had been meaning to do it myself, but I hadn't had the time to dig up the diffs. I've added a few follow-ups of my own. Raul654 (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

TFAR delegates[edit]

How about Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Delegates? BencherliteTalk 13:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your talk comment regarding move following misuse of db-G6 templates[edit]

Hi. I took my eye off the ball due to recent business trips but see you made comment here regarding this history. Following your comment I have restored the deleted RM result. I have also notified Graeme Bartlett who enacted (in good faith) the original db-G6 after hiding the RM result was pointed out. This is one of 3 recent db-G6 related moves counter RM. The others are Yen Bai Province, actioned in good faith by DGG, Thanh Hoa counter Edgar181 "moved page Thanh Hoa to Thanh Hóa: reverting my Oct 2011 G6/move because it wasn't uncontroversial) (undo)" (I have also restored deleted RM note on Talk:Thanh Hoa too). A 4th db-G6 was refused yesterday but article moved anyway, I have noted that to relevant admin Malik Shabazz. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice[edit]

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Notorious B.I.G.[edit]

Hi Gimmetoo, Your feedback is requested in the following conversation: [36]. Thanks, Chimino (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer[edit]

Multiple admins closed a discussion, Kiefer re-opened it for drama multiple times. He was warned, took no heed, and got blocked. I stand by my actions. GiantSnowman 18:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes an answer. Why should I be blocked? Would you prefer I left without anybody knowing? GiantSnowman 18:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
You seem to forget that blocking is preventative, not punitive. Please stop throwing around terms like "misconduct" when three other admins have supported the block, and zero have raised an issue. You would be better off questioning why Kiefer has had talk page access removed, as opposed to why he has been blocked - surely more severe? Have a merry Christmas. GiantSnowman 10:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I was reverting a disruptive editor - an important difference. GiantSnowman 15:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
One could say that - but one would be wrong ;) GiantSnowman 15:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Warn me all you want, my actions were supported by numerous other admins. If there had been anything wrong with the block it would have been undone (it wasn't) or I would have been warned by somebody other than yourself (I haven't) - in fact you're the only one to see any issue with it enough to rant on my talk page. Maybe that's a sign? GiantSnowman 21:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It may be a sign that others have a less charitable but more precise estimation of the worth of engaging you in discussion at least on this matter. Perhaps it's a blessing that you used your block button rather than tried to discuss your whims?
No doubt other administrators regard you as a paragon of virtue, and look down on Black Kite, etc.? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid not Kiefer - admins have to be held to account, and I am no exception. If I had acted in an inappropriate manner then I would expect - and want - to be told so, so I didn't repeat my actions in future. Rather than assuming I'm in the wrong, why not consider the possibility that you were in fact wrong? Oh and for what it's worth I disagreed with the talk page access removal, but I'm sure you'll find that neither here nor there. I don't think any good is going to come over re-hashing this incident again and again, so I suggest all 3 of us drop this, enjoy the rest of the holidays, and continue with our respective good work here. Regards, GiantSnowman 10:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Off the rails[edit]

Furthermore, I consider your access to check user to be a danger to the project. As such, you may be blocked to prevent damage to the project is well off the rails. If you genuinely believe whatever it is you're on about, you need to take it to ANI, arbcomm, whatever, and get laughed at. Putting it on NW's talk page just looks like silly bluster (doubly silly because any block wouldn't prevent CU use) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand what's going on here. Please go away. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anybody can understand what's going on here, Gimmetrow. You have threatened to block a sitting Arbitrator for unspecified concerns about the Checkuser permission, then you've come to AN and locked a thread about yourself, then you've suggested that somebody reverting said closure should be sanctioned. Please take a step back and realize that this silly crusade of yours is improperly conducted. First, a block has no effect on performing checks. Second, the Arbitration Committee is the appointing body for the Checkusers and as such you should bring these matters up with them, not threaten to block people. Third, you really need to read WP:INVOLVED both for the block threat and the closing of the section about yourself. Fourth, nobody is going to sanction anybody for un-hatting that section, as it was improperly hatted to begin with. Fifth, it's not very polite to tell reasonable people that come here to try and make you see reason to "go away". Sixth, it seems clear that you are very passionate about this issue and passion is admirable, but when passion takes over reason, it is the right time to remember that this is a website on the internet, and that if you get so worked up about something that your passion is possibly clouding your reasoning, it's a good time to take a step back and call it a day, and come back fresh and calmer the next day. I've done it many times and I've found it to be very useful and productive :) I very much would very much advise you it seems like the sort of case where everybody would really benefit if you called it a day and came back fresh and calmer tomorrow :) Kind regards and hugs, Snowolf How can I help? 14:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
All right, this is quite enough. Let NW reply for NW's actual use of tools, and the rest of you can jump on me if/when I actually block NW. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Good on the strawmans, arn't you?[edit]

Kiefer didn't close a thread on himself, he reopened one he originally opened which was closed because it discussed reputation damaging information of a living person. Way to go simplifying the situation to take a stab at me though. You've gone a bit off the deep end here, I strongly advise you double check yourself, Boss, because it's not going to end well for you.--v/r - TP 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop interfering. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see this before now.
I reverted a misuse of the close template when there were outstanding issues being discussed, e.g., a statement that emails had been sent to persons with information and widespread criticism of the authoritarian treatment of SM. SM considered the matter closed, at least the next day. However, at the time I reverted the improper closure, there were 5 persons who'd apparently been invited to comment. Should those 5 persons have judged that their options were limited, like SM's, "only to shut it"?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Major thirds tuning[edit]

Thanks for the help with the Article-history template. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive edit - fyi[edit]

I recently noticed that some of the text in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive632 had been overwritten with garbage before it was archived, so I went to the diff where you added the text and copied it into the archive. Please feel free to revert if this doesn't reflect your intentions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare[edit]

I don't disagree with your comments about NW's use of the tools given my recent experiences with him, but you should understand that a block would not do anything to benefit you and would only benefit him. The proof of that should be NW's polite comment that you can go ahead and block him.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

The Winter Walk at Anglesey Abbey - geograph.org.uk - 862583.jpg Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thank you for all you've done so well for so many years! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Article history template[edit]

Hello Gimmetoo. I checked back in on the Village Pump discussion and it appears things are at an impasse. Would you like me to initiate a request to move {{Article history}} back to {{ArticleHistory}}? The only other obvious solution would be to change Gimmebot to process the current template title, and I understand you would prefer not to do that, correct? 28bytes (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been a move request on the talk page since 21 December. 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
It does not appear to have attracted any participants other than Gerda. Perhaps adding a {{requested move}} template would draw in more participants? 28bytes (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There's been a thread on VPT apparently open during the entire time. If they wanted to comment, they would have. It's been open for nearly 2 weeks. Why not just close it? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be a stretch to give it any close other than "consensus not reached" given the low level of participation. 28bytes (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, since user:Thumperward said something to the effect that discussing moves in advance is optional, I doubt user:Thumperward could object. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Real Socking[edit]

Hi, Gimme. Re. your question on NYB's page, "Under the interpretation that a user can switch back and forth between accounts successively, what sort of editing would even be socking.. ?, I pride myself on the best, and only real, sort of socking: editing from two accounts simultaneously.[37][38] Bishonen | talk 18:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

Thanks, that brightens my day a bit. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Social/structural change in Wikipedia[edit]

If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

reflinks[edit]

thx sorry yes i've seen a few of those, i'll be more vigilant. for some bbc refs it also puts in 1970-01-01. i guess we could report to reflinks developer but i think it's the fault of the sites being referenced Tom B (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

TFA for Feb 14[edit]

No immediate rush, since TFAs are scheduled up to and including Feb 13 at present, but the nomination at TFAR for Feb 14 is one of mine. As there's an oppose, I ought not to take the decision on whether to schedule it. Can I leave it to you to decide whether to schedule "Single Ladies", or something else, for that date? Thanks. BencherliteTalk 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I move-protected both articles to save you the bother of logging in again - I did wonder whether it was still necessary, but when someone accidentally unprotected a TFA recently it got hit... BencherliteTalk 19:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gimmetoo. You have new messages at Zheek's talk page.
Message added 12:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zheek (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Input[edit]

Would appreciate your opinion on Talk:Halle Berry. I see this image better for the infobox and would like to reach a consensus, since another editor contends that this very bad image is better. Helliea (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese provinces; renaming discussion[edit]

Hello - I'm contacting you because you participated in the discussion on the proposed renaming of Cà Mau and/or An Giang Province. This is to let you know that a discussion on a number of similar proposed moves is taking place at Talk:Bac Ninh Province. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Tutti i santi[edit]

I thought of you today, when I encountered a man after your own heart, in this jolly chap. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gimmetoo
en.wikipedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2013-48
432208
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:JYY5H6FUBGDW6SD7JOXUCLJL6J5FSNQT
<urn:uuid:526df2ea-a300-41e9-a758-a8873e3a6906>
2013-12-11T18:07:42Z
208.80.154.225
sha1:2J57EIPGOXTMZDCKURO76EQA4DRCZ5OS
<urn:uuid:9027e8d4-bb9e-449b-be92-39b8fbd569b5>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gimmetoo
response
<urn:uuid:043195a1-96de-4799-8b84-9674c2a3484e>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-33-133-15.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2013-48
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for Winter 2013
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf