User talk:Gfoley4/Archives/2011/August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to tag protected article for deletion or merge

Hello. You put the protection on Haplogroup J1c3d (Y-DNA) and I was called to discuss the edit war war there. After some attempt to find a reason for this article to exist on the talk page, there seems to be very little support. Everything published about the subject can better be handled in Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA). Or should this be called a merge proposal? Anyway, I can not tag the article, so I request that it be tagged.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've Unprotected this article. Fell free to start a merge discusssion or AFD it. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reasons To Delete J1c3d (Y-DNA)

  1. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
  2. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  3. Categories representing overcategorization

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It is obvious you did not read the page involved.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, I unprotected the page because 1) the edit war seems to have cooled-off 2) Users wanted to nominated the article for deletion. (see section above) It would be harder to do that while the editors that wanted the page deleted couldn't edit it. I will agree that those reasons above are credible, and you should follow the instructions at WP:AFD to try and get it deleted. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Had you looked at the talk page, you would have been disabused of that notion.
I refer to the article for J1c3d Y-DNA haplogroup as is indicated in the very first section of my User talk page.
Please see:

Please show a reference to J1c3d or L147.1 in:

  1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/ or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/pdf/ejhg2009166a.pdf This is about the parent clade, J1c3, J-P58, or the old J1e.
  2. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1668/2703.full.pdf This does not even mention J1 and may be a reference to J2, given its own article references.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want from me. I've never stated that I want the article to stay – personally I don't care. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just before you froze it, I tried to delete the offending sections. Then I called for it to be deleted. You jumped to a conclusion without ever looking at the article. If you do not care enough to look at the issues, perhaps you should not have become involved.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I thank you for assuming good faith. :>
JohnLloydScarf, you edit-warred way past 3RR. I could have blocked you for a week! But instead, because you didn't receive a warning, I protected the article. This is a content dispute, which admins are not supposed to get into. Please go to WP:AFD and request deletion if you wish there. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made the proposal now with the proper tag. After looking around I have done a similar thing at the related article Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA). Both these articles have very little written about them which can be handled separately or differently from what can be said about Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA), and so that parent article should be where all attention moves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My focus now turned to the parent article Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA), getting constructive editing amoungst interested parties is even more difficult there. The editors do not seem to be vandals, but they are edit warriors, and there is a lot of talk past each other going on. I continue to attempt to get things up to a better standard. But just as a single issue which does not make it easy, could you have a look at User:JohnLloydScharf's behavior with regards to whether it comes under WP:OUTING? See [1], [2]. It is maybe not a big thing yet, but the editor involved has expressed his confidence that this is ok and I think it would be good to get an outside opinion before it gets out of hand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Update. Having taken a more active role, this article, Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) now appears to be in a version which meets the demands of everyone, and is more stable. But I note indications on both the talk page, and in editing acts, that JohnLloydScharf is planning to start the edit war again. His last edits all describe counter proposals as vandalism for example (and was then reverted by another IP) and his talk page posts appear to be threatening that he is going to be less cooperative with very odd arguments or non-arguments. His draft version of the article also does not bode well as something that will be accepted by other editors, or by Wikipedia in general (although it is clearly also playing the role of notes and does not appear to be a literal draft). A practical problem I now have is that while this user was happy with my advice about following WP policy for a while, this seems to have ended. So before things spin out of control requiring RFCs or whatever, I am wondering if you could look over his recent contribs and make any advice to him, me and any others that you think might help. I will post a similar message to User:Favonian who has also been in discussion about this article and related ones. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
So JLS started insisting on edits against consensus again, other editors re-entered the fray, and the article has been frozen again. The pattern is repeating and it starts to look like getting the article blocked might even be deliberate? (Looking at JLS's comments to admins doing the blocks.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Blocking that ip address

I've explained why the block is valid. Cheers, —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Difference between my edit and page shown

Have worked as R&D engineer with LCDs for over 10 years. Did make major changes (improvements in my opinion) to the artcle on Liquid Crystal Displays a few days ago. However, these changes have not yet been incorporated in the text. They only show up when looking at its revision history. What is the procedure ? Is there a compulsory review by somebody knowledgeable ? Thanks for clarification. SwissLCD (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, SwissLCD - I'm not Gfoley4, but I took a look at your edits on that article and the information you added is there in the article. For instance you added "Displays for a small number of individual digits and/or fixed symbols (as" with this edit and that particular text is in the article right now. I'm not sure why you're not seeing them... (By the way, there's not any compulsory reviews, Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone.) --Shearonink (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Change title of article

Could you please change the title of this article about a documentary to the full and correct title. The correct title of this article should be Citizen USA: A 50 State Road Trip.

Here is the link to the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_USA

Thanks!216.3.118.200 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What you did was an act of deliberate vandalism as far as I'm concerned.

Speedy deleting in the middle of debate? To prove a point? It utterly sickens me. You've totally abused the speedy rule, and have abused Wikipedia and it's supposed reliance on debate. For what? Why? Give me one reason? Outrageous. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't AFD an article linked from the Main Page. Drag it to WP:DRV if you feel so strongly about it. (I'm sure that the consensus will be the same there) —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
So what if you are sure the consensus stays the same? I find it so annoying every time I hear an admin say that. You don't realise what it is like this side of the bit. Yes I do feel strongly about it, and I will drag it to WP:DRV (thank you) - with the same reasons I gave for the Afd. Wikipedia is almost unrecognisable compared to its original aims to me. Maybe it's me - maybe I've just misunderstood what it's supposed to be about all along. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested review of your '2011 London riots' keep decision

I've expanded my argument, and will also put a link from the discussion page of the main Wikipedia page (seeing as its presence there was the eventual reason for giving the keep decision).

Deletion review for 2011 London riots

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2011 London riots. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Huggle

I know it's been a while but do you think I'm ready or not yet? WayneSlam 00:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he should be ready by now, since it has been more than seven months. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you have it back! —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

email

Hello, Gfoley4/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

replied. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 03:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblockable

I thought that any vandalism only account could be blocked despite not having several warnings. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're correct in that they don't need warnings (I mis-spoke) "On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately." –WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings But, another reason to not block came to mind. Since both accounts you reported had not edited in about 30 minutes when I got to them, the block may be seen as punishment, which is not the design of blocks. Cheers, —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I still think that they should be blocked, but I respect your opinion since you are an experienced admin. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Pontiac station

Please see the new article Pontiac Transportation Center (2011) and the old Pontiac, Michigan (Amtrak station) which has been converted into a redirect. Should the old one have been moved or are there two different structures? If there are two locations we should retain the old for historical resons. If there is just one, the title should just have been correctly moved. And why the disambiguation (2011). You know more about American railway station articles than I do. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems the old article was about a temporary station, being used while the transportation center was being built. I history-merged the old article to the Pontiac Transportation Center article, as it seems that some of the info was used from the old article. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Now I would never know that a temporary facility had ever been used. Is the address of the new facility the same as the temporary station? This just doesn't seem right. The article previously read as: "The station is located at a temporary facility near the site of the former Pontiac Transportation Center, which was demolished in 2008. The current station is located at 51000 Woodward Ave., Pontiac." Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's at the same address; of course you can add a paragraph about the former station. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh...there was actually a reason why I created the page with the disambiguation...see Pontiac Transportation Center (1983). C628 (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. Move it back, by all means. I'd also advise a hatnote or something. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

what is the point of this action?

Hi, in your edit summary for recent edit / protect action you wrote, "slow-moving edit-war. Both sides please discuss on talk." I find this bizarre. Why would you write that and how does it help? Why didn't you undo the IP's edits but semi-protect the page, what do you think is the purpose of the block?

I have ALWAYS used the talk page, and have had an IP that wither writes single sentences and RVs or RVs without a response. What would you have me do? Is there an policy or essay on what to do in this situation when the other user is really not interested in talking and edit wars for months? What am I missing.

I was previously admonished on the account by Imzadi 1979 and he would provide no clear guidance either but was quite sure what I was doing was an edit war. Understand, I don't want to edit war, I want to talk to the other user, but when the don't talk I don't see what else the options are. Please, enlighten me. 018 (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC) (edited (with strikeout): just noticed that you full protected the page. 018 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

I fully-protected the page after another editor in good standing asked me to look into it. I didn't semi-protect it (allowing you to continue editing) as it may be seen as taking sides in a content dispute, which admins are not supposed to do. If the ip continues to edit-war w/o discussion, I'd advise reporting the user to WP:ANI. Regards, —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to ask, would you consider removing the block if I agree not to edit the page without talk page consensus (including agreement from this IP editor) or discussing it with you, at least for the rest of August. This allows edits not related to this discussion to continue and (since it is at the IP's favorite state) will end RVs for much longer than the block you have established. 018 (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, done. Again, I'd advise reporting the ip to ANI if he continues. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, Imzadi 1979 said I was in a slow motion edit war and I asked him what he would have done, he didn't really answer but reaffirmed that he thought I was edit warning. Imzadi 1979 and I then talked about my prosed edits and I changed them substantially. I think the discussion ended well, with both of us happy. The article was changed pretty substantially, but in new ways, some of which were more stylistic than my previous edits. Then the IP editor RVed the whole thing and left nothing on the talk page. I asked Imzadi 1979 what he would do now. He contacted you and you protected the page. You might have just asked me to try to talk to the IP and then use ANI. 018 (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back. It has been 10 days since the IP reverted National Maximum Speed Law, at that time there was an ongoing discussion about the edits I made that the IP did not comment on (well, maybe there were two, depending on how you count). Five days ago I started an additional discussion about what I thought was a less controversial part of my edits in hopes that I could start small with this IP. I was thinking that I would make this least controversial edit. I came here to talk to you about it per our agreement. Does that sound like a good way to proceed to you? 018 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I would say "go for it." as no-one has discussed the change. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm back again. After another five days, intend to make additional proposed changes to the page, not much, but I wanted to start with smaller stuff to give the IP and me an opening to start discussion on small stuff. Unfortunately, there has been no discussion. 018 (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, even though it is not August, I'm still going to wait a while longer for your answer, since I bothered you already by asking. 018 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the question is. :/ —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
That is fine (my fault). Do you mind if I come back here if there is an actual issue though? 018 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Fine with me. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

round 2

Okay, an IP RVed my edit and then posted a warning that I was POV editing but did not engage me on any topic regarding edits. This was 4 days ago. What would you do now in my shoes? 018 (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I just took this to ANI, per your previous suggestion. 018 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedies gone wrong

Please follow this talk, which is about a set of speedies you are involved in. Meanwhile, it seems to have ended there already, so I might ask for deletion review. -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:ISO 15924

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:ISO 15924. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Set of four). DePiep (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Palmyrene script and Old South Arabian script

Hi, you deleted Palmyrene script and Old South Arabian script because of db-g5. That created red links. To solve that, I'd suggest you recreate those two pages, and copy the original content into them. That way no one has to repeat research into what was correct in the first place, and you even get the creation credits. -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't just copy/paste deleted content into new articles. That would be a copyvio. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
So effectively you salted those two page names, and cannot find a solution around it. The only one laughing is that very banned editor that got you into this situation. Could you at least point to the COPYVIO pages where this is stated for this situation? -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The way out of it is to create an article on it, not using anything that the banner user wrote. FWIW, his article aren't very good – most are one sentence stubs with an infobox. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
you can't just copy/paste deleted content into new articles
Then don't delete the articles. G5 isn't a suicide pact. There is no reason why we must delete every edit made by a banned user. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference

Hi Gfoley, just for reference, I recreated Category:Populated places in Central Province (Papua New Guinea) as, despite its creation by a banned sockpuppet, it was actually a valid category. I'm happy to take responsibility for it as I've written two of the three articles contained within it. Orderinchaos 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice

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. The thread is Speedy delete gone bad. Thank you.Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Revdeletions please

Hello, Gfoley4/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably already done. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably due to the high database lag that I didn't see it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Nah, I was just doing them as you were leaving your first message. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for protecting pages from 4chan! Lucasoutloud (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Cape Spear again

Is it possible to block 66.206.234.210 or semi-protect Cape Spear? Thanks again. Station1 (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Dear sir, you have helped me in the past and are quite knowledgeable. May I ask how you go about keeping a permanent colour in your signature (I'd like mine to be purple, in keeping with my more subdued nom de plume these days)? Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This involves some HMTL. First, click here or go the "My preferences" link at the top of the page. Scroll down to "Signature". Replace the text in the box with this:

[[User:Thebladesofchaos|<span style="color:#insert color here; font:your choice of font here">Thebladesofchaos</span>]] [[User talk:Thebladesofchaos|<span style="color:#insert color here; font:your choice of font">(talk)</span>]]

There are a few things you get to pick out. You can just enter "purple" where the color goes (remove the "#" if you do that) or go on this handy website and pick a color. The font is optional – you can remove it if you want the default Wikipedia font. Please respond if you have any problems. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip - you are a true gentleman! Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Aw, thanks. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gfoley4/Archives/2011/August&oldid=1033957388"