User talk:Gilgongo

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

Welcome to Wikipedia - some useful links for you[edit]

Hello, Gilgongo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

January 2008[edit]


Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:LBi has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Cometstyles 14:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stoozing[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Stoozing, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoozing (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tipping Point[edit]

Gil, nice job. I think that you really improved this article; it needed a criticism section. Kudos to you for finding the sources. I think your section can be expanded even further, based upon your great references; I may do that at one point. Wouldn't it be cool if this article could get to FA? I hope you don't mind that I went ahead and changed the references' format to better parallel the rest of the article.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad to be of help. This page helps me a lot. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Warburton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party (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) 12:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, I tried to use this image for non english wiki pages but it doesn't work. Is there any copyright thing which explains why we can't use it ? Thanks Ramsesteam (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to upload it on the French page and it doesn't work. I think it's because of the copyright. Maybe, as you're the owner, if you try it will work. Thanks Ramsesteam (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll give it a try --gilgongo (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)



You recently contributed to an AfD discussion which is not yet closed, but my comment has nothing to do with the specific instance. If it did, I would post the comment on the discussion board.

Through my own error and being thrown into the AfD process, my interest in and understanding of Wikipedia has evolved. Every editor has to start somewhere and I had been looking forward to contributing to the Wikipedia community in a way other than financial support. Until the AfD discussion occurred, I did not know to what I could lend my expertise and contribute in meaningful ways. When the AfD discussion board was posted, I experienced a deep immersion, explored forums I did not know existed, and saw where I could contribute. Soon thereafter, however, the discussion board received posts from established editors that were critical of newcomers, indeed their very presence on the board rendered them per se suspect. As simple as the process may seem to established editors, 90% of new editors make the same mistakes on the discussion boards. If an editor takes hiself/herself back to the early days, he/she may be more patient and forgiving of neophyte mistakes.

Following some light "biting of newcomers", I looked through other AfD discussions to get a handle on propriety and get a sense of an average discussion board. In looking through other AfD discussions, certain editors appear time and again, such as yourself. Irrespective of the decision you rendered, you offer a sound rationale to support the decision and helpful suggestions. As a Wikipedia neophyte myself, your thoughtful approach gave me hope that there are editors who merely want the best for Wikipedia and endeavor to achieve the best through fair consideration. If the article survives the process, I will heed your suggestions to improve its quality. I always think it is nice to know when our actions impact others in a positive way, so I just wanted to communicate that to you!

CAcarissima (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - there is always a difficult balance to be struck between encouraging new editors and maintaining quality. Sometimes I get that balance wrong, and I think it's true to say that becoming a Wikipedia editor is not an easy process. But that, I believe is a necessary part of the "culture" here. The effect is somewhat like "boot camp" in the army: it can be harsh in order to weed out those who do not have the strength or the ability to become fully-fledged. I am glad that you have demonstrated that strength, and hope that you will contribute more and better things than I have over time. --gilgongo (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Boot camp is right, a test of the will! While I have you, I would like to ask a question about establishing notability for a subject whose expertise is a hybrid of sorts. In response to the AfD debate, editors have contributed to establishing the notability of the subject by including quotes from verifiable, independent, third-party resources which speak to the subject's unique contributions to his field(s). In my opinion, there is a fine balance to be struck between establishing notability and boasting. When I created the article, I erred on the side of caution and included only objectively verifiable truths. For anyone in the field, the subject is a legend but it is hardly appropriate to express that without support. The result is that everything on my page was verifiable, but I failed to adequately communicate the subject's academic reputation and unique contributions to the field.

With that in mind, I wonder if there are any Wikipedia entries for academics with a niche field that you might suggest I look at for inspiration. Or, perhaps, a Wikipedia resource where they list top honors for quality articles in particular fields. If the article survives scrutiny, I want to be as true to Wikipedia's desired form as possible and adequately express his notability. Even though I have read the various Wikipedia guidelines, real examples offer the best guidance to me. If nothing comes to mind, then no worries. But, if you come across an excellent entry in the future, please do forward it to me. Thank you for your encouragement and contributions! CAcarissima (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The notability criteria are hard to pin down, and for better or worse, are subject to the opinions and bias of editors no matter what you do. However, and particularly if the subject is an a very narrow field, editors will look for whether the subject has citations in secondary sources of sufficient strength (eg a mainstream academic journal, a national newspaper) and number (at least three of these). Fundamentally also (although I'm not sure this is explicitly in the guidelines) they need to describe something the subject has done or achieved that others in their position could not have reasonably achieved - that is, it's not enough just to have "done your job" as a doctor, scientist, etc. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, it seeks to document notable knowledge and personal achievements, not just a who's who of any particular field. I shall look out for examples you ask for and show them to you if I see them. --gilgongo (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested for consensus[edit]

Please comment over at Draft talk:Abby Martin#Requested move 04 March 2014. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)