User talk:Gabbe/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gabbe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. Please note there is no discussion at Template talk:Filmography table head to implement and insert the template for filmography headings. It was created as a test some time in the past to address a now defunct filmography heading that is no longer being used and had issues that weren't addressed or fixed since it was never implemented. There is also no talk whatsoever on that page regarding using wikitables, although the filmography heading from WP:ACTOR is in a wikitable format that was, for example, already on Russell Crowe. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised there were 2 different versions of "Beating the devil out of them". Alarics (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with your trimming down of the introduction.

Do you think we might also get rid of the section headed "Etymology"? I think etymology belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia. Alarics (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Gabbe. There is a new Refinery infobox. I added some comments and suggestions at the template's talk page. Your input and opinion is highly appreciated. Beagel (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gabbe/Archive 2! An article you have been involved with has been tagged as being in need of further sources to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Double-barrelled name.

The change to the material was something like "THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA can sue or be sued...." While this might strike you as an attempted constructive edit by someone mildly misinformed, it was as close to vandalism as I have seen in this article. As it turns out, the guy doesn't think of himself as a vandal, which has got to be the worst kind of editor we can have. Vandals can be dealt with. Bad editors take much longer.

I don't see that based on his one edit, that I could have decided anything else other than vandalism. Upon sober reflection, this is a typical (American) middle school type entry from a childish vandal. The fact that he isn't is merely unfortunate, IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You may have been smart enough to determine that he was not a vandal. I was not. It looked like deliberate childish vandalism to me and definitely not a "misguided effort." It clobbered a lead sentence with material that was not useful if not absolute nonsense, often the mark of a vandal.

I do a bit of editing. This does not mean lengthy pondering to determine interior motives. And on articles where non-English editors abound, I try to make allowance for a possible language difficulty. I judge by results. I don't mind being wrong and apologizing. I can't say I feel much like apologizing to this guy who is (so far) not a very good editor, if not a vandal. And I am not entirely convinced, as you are, that he is not a vandal. I agree that making official complaints is usually the sign of a editor, not a vandal, but it is not a sure thing! I certainly will not be reverting him with the "vandal" option on Government of India article. He has won that much leeway! Student7 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I left a somewhat lame apology on his talk page, after realizing (too late) that you wanted me to remove the vandal warnings. Hope this helps. Student7 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gabbe, I saw you added the template for inflation-adjusted sums of money at Marshalsea. Someone has asked that the same thing be added for shillings and pennies too. Do you have any idea whether a template for that exists, or any other way of working it out, if not a template? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gabbe, that's very helpful. I've been going crazy here trying to work it out. :) I found a website that gave a huge discrepancy according whether the figure was retail price indexed or based on average wage, so I gave up. The discrepancy seemed too large to be meaningful. But I will add your 14 pounds for 2s 6d. Thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at this editors contributions, he/she is editing the RRQ article and related articles heavily. I suspect this person is either another sockpuppet or an RRQ member that lacks a NPOV. I will need help to deal with this editor to avoid 3RR. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this note. I'll have to look up the MOS to see what it says about hyphen placement and plural in "a 3 metre(s) wide strip" etc. (If you have a link handy ...) (Found it; WP:HYPHEN and Template:Convert#adj_on.)

And can you tell me why the convert template converts 38 metres into 120 feet? 38/.3048 = 124.67, i.e. it's really much nearer 125 ft than 120. --JN466 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a related discussion ongoing at Template_talk:Convert#Some_suggestions_for_changes_to_the_default_precision. --JN466 11:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That same editor (usually same netblock and similar edit-summary, so I assume it's same person with an occasional copycat/meatpuppet) has been doing this for a long time and has been warned and blocked repeatedly for it. I don't think there's a reason to start anywhere less than 4im. DMacks (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi-

Could you please answer my question, and if you can't, can you direct me to someone who can, please?

I am doing research to start my first article. Is a book an appropriate reference, or can they only be on the internet? I am writing it on the book in paticular.

Thank you-MistyPony1994 (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, Gabbe!

Vatsan34 (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Plantinga's free will defense you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Plantinga's free will defense for things needed to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit, fixing an error I had made here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Belgian residence permit (recto).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Belgian residence permit (verso).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gabbe. The reason I include some verbiage on what the Global Warming Petition is on Teller's page is that the title "Global Warming Petition" can be misleading, causing one to believe that Teller was a signer of a petition in favor of the theory of Global Warming. Not all those who go to Wikipedia will search through each hyperlink to learn the details. It should be reinstated.

Edgy01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgy01 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Good edit on the Sexual orientation and military service article. I look for uncited claims that I can disprove, and I even edited that article today, but I just didn't catch that one. Kudos. Macai (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

for your help -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the things Wikipedia does is correct common misconceptions, of which this is one. Isn't that so? Evercat (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's rather well known. But someone's found a source; I imagine others could be provided. Indeed, the block-quoted text, which was there when I made the edit, makes this clear. Evercat (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Evercat (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You had previous comments on the matter. Extended discussion here: Talk:Veganism#Comments_2. Kellen^T 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop canvassing all the time none of ye were discussing with me anyway. ~ R.T.G 00:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No Gabbe you shouldn't have warned me at all. I did not wander off topic. I have a serious concern about the bias jockeying on that article. If you are lawyering abstractly you may be gaming the system to protect your own set of values or those that you seek to identify with. All questionable entries are open to discussion. You seem not to have read that or the gudeline on general forum discussion which you have suggested to me. Was it really nessecary for me to pursue you and tell you that your idea of wrong was actually wrong? ~ R.T.G 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't my intention to appear hostile, and if I've offended you I do apologise. My concern is that your talk page edits are very difficult for me to comprehend. This edit, for example, doesn't appear to be about what Veganism should say about honey-consumers who consider themselves vegan. Gabbe (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I find that people in control of that article are unwilling to discuss one thing yet overly willing to discuss another. This is the reaction. It's not fair that they pick out what they think is suitable. It is for others outside of Wikipedia to determine what is suitable and for us to acknowledge that. The usual collaborators on that article are quick to say no to everything in one category and yet a study of wether meat-eaters are prone to paedophilia gets a serious discussion. That is ridiculous, isn't it? Can't determine if a bee falls under the category vegetable or accept popular culture in Germany to be interesting and noteworthy? What sort of input do they expect? There is no culture on the article and no food. It's a bit dumm I think. ~ R.T.G 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The article says:

It was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009 after being approved by the Oregon Supreme Court.

Is this true? None of the sources appear to say that SCOTUS has granted certiorari to hear this case. Gabbe (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The source document from the National Catholic Register talks about the 6th Circuit Court to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is technically a lower branch of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is quite high up in the American legal system, it is very close to the final court. It would probably get to the Supreme Court if that given lower court were unable to resolve the dispute once and for all. ADM (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a more recent source here from Beliefnet that openly declares that “the case has reached the US Supreme Court”.[1][2] ADM (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, If you have time to take a look at Talk:Paddle_(spanking)#schools_.22Mainly_in_the_south.22_use_corporal_punishment I would be grateful to know what you make of it. I feel that I am being got at unfairly. -- Alarics (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gabbe! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 175 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Évelyne Thomas - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know my way around the medical end of this 'pedia well enough to have pointed to WP:MEDRS on the SOCE page, but it sure does apply well, and was a good effort putting that in. - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tjena Gabbe! (yeah, I'm Swedish too)

Would like to bring your attention to my new and improved post in talk:Rape. Since I felt it was all "plain to see", my previous post on the same topic was short and perhaps sloppy, sorry about that. But is it okay to feel a tiny bit hurt by your removal due to trolling? Jag har ju liksom ingen svans ;)

No seriously, no hard feelings, I'm very impressed by all the good work you done for Wikipedia.

Cheers!

Coolhearted (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that, it did look like trollism at first glance. My humble apologies! Gabbe (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it sure looked like trolltyg! I assumed way too much insight on that specific piece of artwork. So over and out, thanks for the help, and I hope to clash with you again some day ;) Coolhearted (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for rescuing my comment from oblivion on the Talk:Creationism page. I was a bit confused by the wiki markup for the archived discussion and ended up archiving my comment by mistake. Glad you caught that. Ori.livneh (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I appriciate the vote of confidence for my suggestion in the Creation according to Genesis talk page. The horse has been beaten into a blood smear on the floor and any help to arrive at some semblance of consensus is very welcomed! Nefariousski (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in helping me with the FAQ for this article I'm working off of the following test page Nefariousski (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gabbe, thanks for your very constructive (and helpful) critique of my final proposal on the Creation fiasco. I would like to follow up on your suggestion of finding a way to incorporate the Pinnock quote. Am giving that much thought.

I was assiduously editing the lede in Book of Genesis when I checked history and you had just add "myth." I had already written "myth" into para. 2, so would you please see if this explanation meets your approval? IMO, the lede was fairly skimpy, so I added some of the kinds of material that often introduce a Book of the Bible. Thanks! ─AFAprof01 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

I was referred to your 'spanking' page due to the appearance of it being a fair and balanced treatise of the subject. The supposed 'research' conducted on Sweden's 'failed' ban on spanking is highly flawed and has never been deemed worthy of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. It's (internet) shelf-life stems mainly from pro-spanking conservative Christian web sites.

I'm afraid those 'Swedish crime stats' are also bogus. Did you chase that resource? (Because of Sweden's success in reducing rates of Child Abuse, we are now up to 23 countries that have followed Sweden's lead by instituting their own bans on spanking... with more in the process of following suit.)

Perhaps I can help edit this page to be more scientific friendly. I'll get back to you soon.

James C. Talbot, author of, "The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent's Guide". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmonyunltd (talk • contribs) 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicely handled, Gabbe. I appreciate your efforts in producing a more representive picture of this ill-advised punitive practice.

James C. Talbot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmonyunltd (talk • contribs) 11:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Gabbe, Saw your comment here and just had a question. I normally remove comments such as that per WP:SOAP, is there some sort of policy about not removing anything from talk pages even if it's just an arbitrary pov rant? Nefariousski (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that I've tagged 78.108.45.1 (talk · contribs) as a school, I checked WHOIS and it came up as a school (sometimes you have to use RBL). I find it useful to check as it can help others and also, for me at least, influences how long I make the block. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Gabbe. Was the comment by that IP so bad that it needed to be blocked out? Would you mind relaying to me what was stated? Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, thank you for informing me of the details. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to know if you want to continue this discussion. If not, I'd appreciate a note. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Hi Gabriel, I only ever see very helpful edits from you around the project, so this is to let you know that your work is noticed and much appreciated. All the best, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Gabbe. First, I was disturbed by the obnoxious vandalism to your User page. I'm really sorry—it was so offensive. What a crackpot.

I remain grateful for your recent mediating role in my difficulties with another user. Things have been better.

If I recall correctly, you once suggested that I might bring to the Genesis creation article lead some scholarly statements about the misunderstanding of Creation myth. I have posted quite a few on the Talk page over the last couple of weeks, and have more. I would appreciate your advice on how I might approach this. Thanks, ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 22:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Great call on the pic added to 1986 Hvalur sinkings! Surprised that article hasn't gotten more love given the popularity of Whale Wars. I'm not anti-whaling personally, but it seemed an interesting enough historical event that I figured I should create and article about it. Thanks for the pic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gabbe,

Being that you are one of the more levelheaded and knowledgable (regarding policy and guidelines) frequent contributors at the Genesis creation myth page I'd appriciate if you took a few minutes to look over my draft ANI post regarding that article before I post it this afternoon. If you have any comments or additions please feel free to make them here.

Thanks! Nefariousski (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I completely forgot! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gabbe -- could you please elaborate on how this is substantive? The current definition gives no clear way to avoid the informal meaning for current belief systems. The informal meaning is "commonly believed but untrue". A formal meaning, therefore, must either be 1) not commonly believed, but 2) not necessarily untrue (i.e. neither true nor untrue). My first attempt to solve this problem was to address current verses dead belief systems -- the 1st option. This was rejected. Therefore, the only other avenue is by means of the 2nd option, on focusing on symbolic rather than literal truth. One of these is required by the current wording, which mandates a rejection of the informal use. Am I missing something here? I haven't altered the inherent meaning at all, but clarified what is mandated by avoidance of the informal meaning. I'll be happy to work with you here, but between you and Ben the article is retaining an inherent problem, which has spilled over into at least one article, and perhaps others.EGMichaels (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Prion/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Disruptive behavior by user Steaphen Ansgarf (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page. Genesis 5:4 " After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. " Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Gabbe, just wanted to let you know that I've decided to handle a bot request of yours, Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 34#BLP tagging?. I know it's pretty old, but I was recently looking through old bot requests and thought it might be fun to do. The approval request can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 12. Thanks! — The Earwig ^(talk) 03:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

is just trolling. I intend to stop feeding him. My advice is, you can stop feeding him too. You have bent over backwards and he is just being argumentative for the sake of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What's your interest in this then? It's a useful new bit of legislation, isn't it? Wikidea 02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ive reverted your deletion, restoring my addition to the etymology section. I request that we discuss it on the talk page rather than deal with it adversarially. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I moved you reply so it is above Bilby's one [3] as I believe that is where it should be based on indenting. I understand in cases like this where you are replying to something where the indentation is already confused, it's difficult to know what to do but given the collapse box which I don't know who added, it was rather confusing in the old location. Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The information you added on IDAHO's article about the day same-sex marriage in Portugal implies that the day was deliberately chosen when it is not celebrated in Portugal and Cavaco is avowedly against gay marriages. I think it should be removed. Galf (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

As I noted on the same sex marriage law, Cavaco has stated that he would let it pass to avoid further time spent discussing this matter, which he regards as a distraction from more important and pressing issues (we are trying to avoid being the next Greece...). As for IDAHO's relevance, I didn't see any news about it or any mention to it relating the date the assent was given. Some note was given to the fact that Cavaco let the Pope go back to Italy first and also to the him addressinf the nation to explain why he was signing it, which he seldom does. I'm not trying to reduce the importance of Homophobia Awareness, just trying to keep the articles as solid as possible. Personally I think this is a step forward for Portugal.Galf (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for fixing up the article history on the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 1988. Usually I remember to change the status to GA, but I forgot this time. The other part I don't know how to do. So thanks for doing that! Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 13:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: archiving. I did not realize the 1RR was a template because it looks just like a normal section. TFD (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah! You beat me to the edit warring noticeboard report. After following all those reverts today, and issuing the warning, I was just waiting for him to violate the warning to put it in. As soon as I catch up on a bit of sleep, wham! It all happens and you're right there on top of it! You noticeboard report thief! Oh well =P

Seriously though, thanks for staying on top of that, as well as some of the other incidents you've been involved with recently. I've run into you a couple of places now and you've been doing great work. Keep it up :) Jess ^talk _cs 00:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have done an amazing job with the article, thank you very much. I only have limited time at work but felt it necessary to build a rough article to start. Many thanks. doktorb _words^deeds 17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, you are indeed correct. I have reverted to the HTML Link. Jkl678 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

When was the first ethnic & minority rights (culture education political language rights) declared in England? Don't confuse it with immigration and citizenship laws/acts! Can you write me? Many Thanks! mail: [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate venue to ask this kind of question is WP:RDH. Gabbe (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

are very persistent. one thing for sure they often do non controversial edits then subtly put in racist material. it is clear that Sameer hates migrants in Norway. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Checking the edits that Gabbe reverted by Shalalal, none i would say crossed the boundary of being racist or negative on immigrants. In fact it was very positive material. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You have done some great work on these articles. I hope to be of assistance in your efforts. Do not hesitate to comment on my Talk page if you see the need. Thanks. OzOke (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! I would like to know whether it is possible to create a second account of mine with which to put categories, templates and links to Bulgaria-related articles? I ask that because it is annoying to see tons of minor edits in my list contributions. That distracts me from monitoring certain thing... Regards, --Gligan (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gabbe, I've posted an RfC at Talk:Roger Scruton—see here—to ask whether the neutrality tag should remain on the article. There are a number of issues in dispute; if you could comment even on just one of them, or your overall impression of the article's balance, that would be very helpful. I'm leaving this note because you've edited the article or talk page, but if you have no interest in commenting, please feel free to ignore the request. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article Academies Bill 2010 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

bill became an act last year

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Leta1000flowersbloom (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Local Government Bill 2010 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The Bill became an Act last year and can be found at Local Government Act 2010. This page now seems obsolete.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hydrolysed (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Swedish hundrade, apart from meaning "hundredth", is also an obsolete form for hundra, so uti hundrade år = i hundra år = for 100 years. Is this right or wrong? --Theurgist (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. The word hundrade is nowadays only used in the ordinal sense, such as hon är den hundrade kunden idag ("she is the hundreth customer today"). However, in older texts it sometimes signifies the cardinal. SAOB gives examples like Sexhundrade krigare stormade ner ("Six-hundred warriors stormed down") and Alla hennes hundrade sysslor ("All one-hundred tasks of hers") for this. The preposition uti is itself archaic, so that serves as a clue. Gabbe (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Tack ska du ha. --Theurgist (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

Can you please help me two accounts keep removing stuff on my user page please thank you --Vince (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Need advice about readiness of my article for moving to the final stage. Pls advice. myBantu.--- Askjayaa (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on removal of the phrase. The reason for its inclusion by me in the first place was the assertion that the bill had to be passed by both Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, which for the reason given in your edit summary, is fallacious. Many thanks. ISTB351 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that you deleted the page on al-Qasimi (al-Qasemi) citing as a reason that this person would be nonexistent. I would like to point out that this author does exist, has had a lot of his books published, and even has been the subject of a doctoral thesis. A very simple and direct way to verify this is to search for عبد ألله القصيمي on the international bookshop http://www.neelwafurat.com : you will find that they sell quite a lot of his books. I would like you to consider undeleting the wikipedia page on this author. Al-Musta'rib (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Gabbe/Archive 2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Okeyes (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thank you for updating the Cochrane reviews in several articles today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi-- I've added a few comments to the talkpage for this article, and invite you to take a look. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Gabbe,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For updating the Cochrane reviews. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Woody Allen Barcelona Project. Since you had some involvement with the Woody Allen Barcelona Project redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). – hysteria18 (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Point taken! I like your latest revision.

I see that there is to be a new Bill in the Queen's Speech re court photography / filming in England & Wales. I assume we will soon have an article on the legislation. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In your edit at 08:12, 15 March 2012 to Needle-exchange programme, you wrote "(edrughab.com is not a reliable source, and even it doesn't say that the AMA "strongly" supports NSP. Is there a reliable source (see WP:MEDRS) saying so?)"

Would the following two references be acceptable?

• Yoast, R.; Williams, M. A.; Deitchman, S. D.; Champion, H. C. (2001). "Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs". Journal of Addictive Diseases. 20 (2): 15–40. doi:10.1300/J069v20n02_03. PMID 11318395.
• Stancliff, S.; Agins, B.; Rich, J. D.; Burris, S. (2003). "Syringe access for the prevention of blood borne infections among injection drug users". BMC Public Health. 3: 37. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-3-37. PMC 317318. PMID 14633286.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

The second reference quotes from an AMA policy statement from 2000 that uses the word "strongly" but also uses language not often mentioned in these discussions. Distribution of needles and syringes

• must be under physician guidance.
• should be in conjunction with addiction counseling.

The web page quoted in the second reference that contains the AMA policy statement is unfortunately no longer available. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want, it's only a short drive to the university library, and thanks to electronic access, I should be able to get a full-text copy of the first reference which I can post on Google Docs for you to view. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I did the partial restore of the deleted text with qualification. You can check over my edit: "The WHO's findings have also been supported by the American Medical Association (AMA), which in 2000 adopted a position strongly supporting NSPs when combined with addiction counseling.(references)". Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The article Black Stone you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black Stone for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? GoP_T^C_N 08:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Was good! It is a good citation and might help the original poster with their interests. Obviously I disagree strongly with Hayek's analysis, but it certainly was worth noting! I agree with your characterisation of the problem domain and literature on the topic entirely. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Author/Gabbe

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Age-related muscular degeneration. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on [email protected]. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem on that page is this: the coding for the references doesn't work. I tried changing it but it still didn't work, even though I'm totally sure the syntax is correct. Somebody should check that out.--Portyot70000 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with the template Cypriot presidential election, 2008. I'd like to upload some images from the Internet for some candidates on Cypriot presidential election, 2013. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimnaz (talk • contribs) 12:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Objection and Admission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember me? I'm the user who wanted help for uploading some images for the Cypriot presidential election. Listen , I read what you posted on the talk sector , although I do not understand many things . Can you PLEASE upload two images for the article ( one for Giorgos Lillikas and one for Stavros Malas) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimnaz (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the graphs you are removing with the summary "correlation does not imply causation", I can not see any claims of causation. However, I must object to the attempt to obscure interesting historical facts. Do you think censoring that graph improves the encyclopedia? Paum89 (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the chart probably shouldn't be in Economics article, but on different grounds. The argument "correlation does not imply causation" doesn't have any place here. If the chart were original, it would be OR, since its not, the source's claim of "causation" is fine as long as its clearly cited. The issue for me is WP:Weight. Economics is a top-level article. We should only covering the most established parts of economic theory. The supposed relationship between taxes and employment that CAP (the chart source) is proposing is only documented in a partisan think tank's online release. The "Economics" article should be primarily sourced from textbooks, peer review, and other well established texts.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The graph was removed from several articles. There is a paragraph in Economics#Unemployment which seems to specifically refer to it. The edit summaries for all the removals suggested that the articles were not referring to the graph. Paum89 (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've replied here, where I think the discussion should continue. Gabbe (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you on what basis you linked Dualus with this sockmaster? [4]? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Gabbe,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. You actually arrived here at exactly the same time as me!

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC).

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Gabbe/Archive 2 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Pratyya (Hello!) 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I create userboxes and a member of Wikiproject Userboxes. So I think you might want to add this to your user page:

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Also you can contact me at my talk page if you want more suggestion. Cheers and Happy editing.

--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to say that since Green children of Woolpit has been protected to prevent editing except by those with admin rights, it might be wise to avoid all non-essential editing on it. While adding JSTOR references in line with the existing citation style, is hardly contentious, it does give a poor impression to some non-admin users who have been blocked from editing the article, and might be best left until the protection has been lifted. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• And it's lifted now: thanks for the edits. I added a bit more, including a journal article; would you mind looking at it to see if you can do some doi magic, or whatever funky thing you did? Tack so mycket, Drmies (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed a reversion you made. I have not yet looked at the content of the edit and am only writing you to ask about the edit summary. You claim Neo Poz is a banned sockpuppet. That may be, I don't know. But since this editor has appeared on several articles I watch I would like to learn more why you make that assertion. Can you fill me in, preferably with diffs? Thanks (cc'd to the ed in question) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC) nevermind, I must be pre-coffee this morning. Sorry to bother you NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Gabbe, seeking input over on RS/N. Minphie (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Minphie#Just a reminder, whatever you do — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing some of the dabs on this. I will work on the rest over the weekend. Thanks again! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rooftree, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Per Krafft (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Needle_Exchange_Programme:Talk Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Needle exchange programme

Please add any relevant thoughts or comments. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Naytz (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC) As it now stands, the wikipedia article is very vague, No? "... small stones from the Mamluk period (Muslim, 13–16th century) and later" Could this be improved? Naytz (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are correct, but the article's text doesn't mention that. If you can add a sentence or two, I'll support removing the notability template; it was added because the article, as written, is a tiny stub that doesn't clearly state it's notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw nobody replied to your Reference Desk post, so I thought I'd show you a TV Tropes section more designed for the sort of question you asked: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?type=ykts --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gabbe, there is a discussion at Talk:Corporal punishment/Archive 3#Campaigns against about merging the article into the main corporal punishment article. Since you were involved with me in creating this set of articles in 2009 I thought you might wish to contribute. Best, Alarics (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raymond Lubitz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Lubitz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LK (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gabbe,

It is a little bit of an honor to talk to one of the old guard who have been around since the beginning. I saw that you blocked this account as a vandalism only account but only for 36 hours. Normally these types of accounts are just blocked indefinitely as there is pretty much zero chance of them actually rehabilitating and becoming normal contributors. Just thought I would let you know. Cheers. --Majora (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)