User talk:GDallimore

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

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Patent troll may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Patent Trolls: A Global Perspective Re: Patent Infringement], Lisa L. Mueller, February 17, 2014]</ref> the UK{{cn|date=May 2014}} and other countries{{cn|date=May 2014}}, a legal action may be

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Electronic harassment[edit]

I'm working on this article, your help isn't very helpful.[1]

Could you be so kind to restore the page so that the work may continue.

Thanks,

84.106.11.117 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Before you ask: I'm not renee00124 and no I dont have an account. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
You shut down my efforts towards improving this article, I'm now waiting for your response.
84.106.11.117 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting....
84.106.11.117 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Your contributions do not improve the article. End of discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 15:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello again,
End of discussion? You call this a discussion? You call that an article? I'm not impressed! With all respect, I don't particularly care for your believes about my ability to write an article. The reality from my perspective is that you didn't give me time to finish it. 4 minutes is just not enough to even remove the italics, let alone attempt to rewrite everything neutrally, source everything properly and remove remaining unsourced sections. It just cant be done in 4 min. It was obvious enough I was working on that was it not? It is not beyond me to search for sources, delete material that doesn't belong and put [citation needed] where the citations are reasonable but not good enough. Inserting section by section from the archive is considerably more work. Specially if the content (if we can call it that) still has to be arranged properly. With your help, it could have been finished by now? We can do it your way of course, if you insist. I'm curious, are you just going to sit there or are you going to help write it?
I was reading this talk page contribution of yours:
"allegations from individuals identified as delusional by every reliable source I can find."
You haven't looked very hard. Start here: Harassment then read on here: Directed-energy_weapon, Sonic weapon, Non-lethal weapon and here: Project MKUltra. The last one is most relevant. The "toys" apparently have been elaborately tested on civilians, reliable sources report. Some NBC link announcing that it is all in peoples head is not a sufficient refutation. Even if it was, the conspiracy theories are also notable, provided they can be sourced properly and are described as such, they make up an important bit of historic context.
In some states it is illegal to own such a weapon: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter170
In others you need a license for it much like a fire arm: http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2005/title53a/sec53a-217.html
People have these things and they are going to use them you see? While it should not become a repository of victims, if there are relevant court cases we can use those, I haven't seen any so far.
If you are really that worried about non existent article, lets debate the sections on the article talk page and try find sources for them. I believe that was the way it was suppose to be done? Unless you just want to sit there and complaint of course, while not very useful, you are free to do that as well.
Don't forget to read the MKUltra article. The Electronic harassment article should not contradict every word on that page in my view.
If you don't agree with that, please elaborate.
Thanks for your time.
84.106.11.117 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Do read the link before removing the quote again[edit]

http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/pages/about-us/earth-history/evolution.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.228 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles are based on INDEPENDENT sources. GDallimore (Talk) 21:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Even ignoring the key fact that the link doesn't mention theistic evolution. GDallimore (Talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talking tree as a link on Auditory hallucination[edit]

Hello, you said there is no reason to add the link Talking tree to Auditory hallucination. I disagree , re inserted the link and started a dialogue on the talk page of Auditory Hallucination. I forgot to leave a comment when I did the edit, describing the reversion, that is the reason I am writing you here.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Images of comics characters[edit]

Category:Images of comics characters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Optica[edit]

Dear Geoff,

Please do not delete my Optica Software article!!!! I am still working on it. I will try to improve the sources, and get some of the the users to contribute, so please give me time.

Your push to delete, has greatly distressed me.

Regards, Ann Williamson — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnWilliamson2 (talkcontribs) 20:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I gave you 2 months and you did nothing. Your promises are hollow. Take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. GDallimore (Talk) 00:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

About the article Flowers for Algernon[edit]

Hello User:GDallimore! I saw that you (correctly) reverted an edit in Flowers for Algernon due to its objective lack of secondary sourcing and its subjective insignificance. I wasn't sure whether to call the new section "In popular culture" or "Derivative works", but I was planning to add other examples (this time, sourced) of works that have been inspired by the novel. Before proceeding with the expansion, and being quite new here at Wikipedia, I'm contacting you to know if there is any kind of "veto" to expand the article with derivative works, since you rejected that content two times, instead of finding a source and accepting the addition. Sorry if this question seems naive to you, but before investing time in searching for resources, I prefer to be sure that my actions will be compatible with the content guidelines that have been chosen by you for this article. Thanks in advance for your answer! ► LowLevel (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Per WP:CIVIL, please try to refrain from calling other editors "fuckwits". Thanks, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of interest to you[edit]

You were a discussant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier which (somewhat strangely) closed as a delete with 5 delete and 4 keep responses. The article has since been recreated through the WP:AFC process and a speedy deletion was contested. Thus, I call your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)