User talk:Gigs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola apps kmail.png To contact me, write here. I will reply on this page.


Copyright infringement issue[edit]

Gigs, You've accused me of copyright infringement for using elements I've written for clients' websites. I'm not sure how to respond to being accused of copyright infringement on my own articles as I was an official for those companies. Can you help me understand this better? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtoddrash (talkcontribs) 21:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It may not be legal copyright infringement if you own the copyright to the work, but we can't accept submissions that include copyrighted material that was published elsewhere without obtaining a release from the copyright holder. Note that the companies involved (and not you) may be the sole holder of copyright if you were their employee when you created the work originally. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. You may want to also review the guidelines at WP:Conflict of interest. Gigs (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/District Councils' Network[edit]

Hi Gigs, many thanks for reviewing my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/District Councils' Network.

However I'm unsure that the two comments you have left me are correct; I believe the article addresses them. One of your comments state that 'None of the sources added provide independent, significant, coverage.' However the article has referenced many independent significant sources. For example there are references from newpaper articles (The Guardian and The MJ), a collection of Journals from the University of Birmingham, UK Parliament publications and much more. These sources are independent (they are not linked at all with the organisation), and siginificant (for example how is a reference to the organisation from a UK Parliament Publication not significant).

Secondly you have left the comment 'If you submit the same article at AfC again without seriously addressing the issues raised by the reviewers, the article may be deleted permanently or you may be blocked for disruptive behavior. Every AfC submission requires reviewer effort, and repeatedly submitting nearly the same article is wasting everyone's time.' Each time I have submitted the article I have made numerous changes, this can be viewed through the article creation history. As stated in the above paragraph, I believe that these issues have been addressed through the changes.

Could you please explain how the sources are not independent and significant and what sort of sources are you looking for to meet this criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajidimond (talkcontribs) 10:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You aren't addressing the fundamental reasons the article keeps getting rejected. The Guardian article is written by "James Maker, policy officer for the District Councils Network", who is not an independent source. It is also not a regular Guardian article, it's published through a program that allows submitted content. It's more like a press release than an actual article. The MJ article probably does qualify as actual coverage, but it is on a very niche site, and that's just one article. We are looking for fully independent, significant coverage. Gigs (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gerard Fowke[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

Your opinion is valued at WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Please see Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]


Hello, Gigs:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

  • Featured content: F*&!

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Gigs from KarlBoer[edit]

Dear Gigs, thank you for your kind and encouraging recent remarks. I need a bit of this encouragement because of my total lack of experience in writing encyclopedia contributions; 350 Publications over decades of my professional life don't help much. You have guided me step by step, and I should have more courage now to continue, since I had more "firsts" in my life. But because of growing difficulties in reading small prints and in dealing with the computer (I still can write in "Word"), I have asked Anita Schwartz for help; she was my assistant over decades, when I was a professor at the University of Delaware. I am happy that she still can work with me to put my work into the proper form for submission to Wikipedia. Sincerely Karl W. Böer — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlBoer (talkcontribs) 21:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

Please take a look[edit]

at WT:COI. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

Hoot Hester.[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to that article. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

Happy New Year Gigs![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Gigs:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Peace sign.svg

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks! Gigs (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Remington R51[edit]

I believe you were hasty in moving my page creation. It should be the "R51" as that is what is written on the side of the pistol. --Winged Brick (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I was going by the one source we have right now. Probably best to wait for Remington's official press release before moving it again. Gigs (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
That's noble, but it's going to go back. There are more than one press releases now. Please change it back. [1] [2] --Winged Brick (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind. I moved it myself. --Winged Brick (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, yesterday those sources didn't exist, only TFB and sites reblogging TFB. Now that we have more sources saying no dash, it looks like it may have been an error on TFB's fault. Gigs (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Several sources also spell John Pedersen's name incorrectly. --Winged Brick (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

DYK nomination of Remember The 13th[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Remember The 13th at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK withdrawn?[edit]

I just wanted to make sure it was your intention to withdraw this DYK nomination before I marked it as such. If instead you still want to give it a go, let me know and I'll give it another look. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Gigs, I asked Orlady to take a look at this nomination after your most recent post, and she has responded. Please let us know what you want to do at this point. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]


Hi Gigs. I was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look at my work on this article later on (I have a COI). I submitted it to AfC with a COI back in September '12. It was accepted, but is more representative of my work back then. Almost a year and a half later, the company asked about updating it and agreed to also make it more neutral and perhaps pursue GA. Actually I'm really happy to be circling back to a lot of mediocre work I did over a year ago and bring it up to code.

Anyways, I thought of you because it is a small software company similar to Crashplan, which I also brought up to GA after a decent (not awful, but not quite impeccable) first draft effort. I'm just doing research now, so it will be a while before I have a first-draft to offer. Let me know if you have time to take a look later. CorporateM (Talk) 01:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me know when you have something I can look at. I have a new baby and not much time for WP right now. Gigs (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Act-On#Improvement or if you are not available, just let me know. Thanks in advance if you do have time. Because the current article that I wrote in 2012 is already well-developed, I know it will be difficult to compare the proposed draft with the current article. At the same time, it is not practical for me to point out edits one at-a-time. Let me know if there's any better, more practical way for me to make it easier to review. It should get more vetting in the GA process as well if (*crosses fingers) I get a good reviewer. CorporateM (Talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good step, thanks. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list[edit]

Hello Gigs! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]


Hello Gigs:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

DYK for Jens Hoyer Hansen[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Close request move[edit]

[3] Thanks --Panam2014 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have closed it. It may not be the closure that you had hoped for, but I think in the long run, the root issues need to be addressed, and putting it under a new name won't solve them. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Egyptian Revolution of 2013[edit]

Please note that the article survived deletion less than a week ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Revolution of 2013). The reason of this AfD nomination was the claim of it being WP:FORK but it apparently proved wrong eventually. Do you think it should be merged or nominated again? Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as the closer on the AfD said, there needs to be a high level consensus about our coverage of these events. I don't believe a simple move will fully solve the issue. As the AfD closure indicated, we need to come up with a more comprehensive consensus on the issue, taking all of our articles on the subject into account, avoiding redundancy between articles, and avoiding having articles that are effectively POV forks. I do not think it should be nominated again for AfD right away. Please work with other editors regarding removing the redundancy between this article and the other similar articles. In the end, you may find that there is nothing distinct left in this article that can't be covered in other articles. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I took the advice of the closing editor Scottywong and tried to ask RoySmith for recommendations on how to improve the article, but the latter hinted that they don't have an answer for the issue (see here). I honestly don't know what to do, because most editors there who opposed the article as a whole from the beginning don't seem to have clear arguments, since some voted for the article to be deleted, but at the same time they wanted it to be renamed before it's gone. So if you have any suggestions or solutions at hand i would be more than glad to consider them. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say that part of the problem is that people aren't asking the right questions. Gigs (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, and some resident users like Panam2014 here for example, sound eager to move the article to a different title no matter what, with unclear motivations and with no willingness to discuss seriously [4] [5] [6] [7]. Other users keep saying that the article is full of "wrong information" and that it is "unneutral", on the pretext that i'm doing most of the work in it. And when i ask them to specify the reasons for which they are dissatisfied, they appear to be unwilling to clarify and they keep insisting on only one thing: the article should be deleted but renamed at the same time. So i really don't know with whom i should discuss the issues you and Scottywong hinted at, and if the article is to be re-nominated, it would probably be over void discussions (again) with no clear arguments. What do you think i should do to get over this as soon as possible and to start editing with no similar disturbance? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I can see your side of it, but on the other side, your position is in the minority as it does seem that a great many editors have concerns about the article, nebulous as they might be. You seem like a reasonable person, so I encourage you to try to take the lead in developing a consensus that everyone can live with. Ultimately that's what consensus means here on WP, that it's an outcome pretty much everyone is willing to go along with, even if it wasn't their exact preferred outcome. That isn't always possible because some people will "fight to the death", but it's the goal we should be aiming for. Gigs (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Egyptian Revolution of 2013[edit]

It is a POV title. Can you move to June-July 2013 Egyptian protest ? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

See my comment to Fitzcarmalan above. Gigs (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

close request[edit]

[8] Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panam2014 (talkcontribs) 20:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Early closure of the discussion[edit]

I'm not objecting to your decision yet, but i will add that a user and his sockpuppet both participated and were both blocked indefinitely from editing also because of their baseless POV-pushing. (see here) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I don't think that materially affected the outcome. I mostly considered the policy strength of each side's arguments, but of course I did give the numbers on each side consideration as well. It was for much the same reason I concluded "no consensus to move" to the "riot" name that I concluded "consensus to move" on the "protest" name, in that both "riot" and "revolution" do not enjoy very widespread use as a direct description of the subject matter in the sources provided by the RfC participants to support their arguments which revolved around WP:COMMONNAME for the most part. Gigs (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

Help with Time-Division Long-Term Evolution article?[edit]

Hi Gigs, hope you're well. I'm reaching out to you since you previously helped me out with the Backend as a service article, and I'm wondering if you might be willing to help with another tech/telecom article: Time-Division Long-Term Evolution. I'm currently working on behalf of Qualcomm to update this article, which suffers from a number of issues, as I've detailed over on the article Talk page. You can find my proposed, new draft of the article in my userspace. If you have time, do you think you'd be willing to take a look and, if my draft looks okay, move it over, replacing the current article? Any questions or comments, I'm all ears! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

Title of "Islamist_unrest_in_Egypt_(2013–present)"[edit]

Hi Gigs, i need a help as i am not an administrator, the discussion of the Title for the article of "Islamist_unrest_in_Egypt_(2013–present)" is still open since dec. 2013, How to close this discussion with a decision?. the discussion is open since December 2013. you can check the link ( ). I can see that only one member who is against the change of the article title, while remaining editors are in favor of the change. what should we do then?, thanks 20:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have recused myself from administrative-type actions in that topic area, so that I can act as a more direct facilitator of the discussions. Gigs (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Andri Kuawko is another sockpuppet of Hans Franssen. Thought i should let you know. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

Sara Jay Proposed Deletion[edit]

I do not appreciate your comment. I spent a lot of time on the page and saying stop wasting our time when you don't have a clue about Sara Jay, her awards or accomplishments was quite rude. I didn't know Wikipedia was us against them. Ilovepitts (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

While you have spent a lot of time working on a page for someone who clearly isn't notable, we've had to spend a lot of time deleting it over and over and over. And now we have to investigate your sockpuppeteering. Gigs (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not true unfortunately and I ask for an apology. Why is everyone so mean around here. You seem to care less about the actual article than causing problems. Have you actually read anything in the article or are you a porn hater?Ilovepitts (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've got nothing against that field of endeavor. You may want to review the information on WP:COI as well if you have business or personal associations with the entertainers you are editing about. Having a conflict of interest is not necessarily a problem in itself, after all most experts do have some kind of conflict, but it's something that you should disclose. Gigs (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Message added 00:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requesting input at the discussion: !Vote requested to clarify matters about awards sent. NorthAmerica1000 00:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]