User talk:Gilliam

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


Thanks for the rollback powers, I wasn't expecting that. I'll try to use it responsibly.

I'm curious - why me? I didn't ask for this and in fact I didn't even know it was a thing that existed. Is there some process Wikipedia uses to find people to give the power to? Popcornduff (talk)

Because you're big on schoolblocks....[edit]

Just thought I'd point out the future of kiddie vandalism. We're blocking all of the schools, and now they're just going to use cell phones to do their dirty work. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Block them for block evasion.– Gilliam (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotect my user page, please?[edit]

I pride myself on having a thick online skin, but there's no point leaving windows around for vandals to throw stones at for fun. Thanks again for the rollback rights! FourViolas (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Done.– Gilliam (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Correction of wrong spelling[edit]

Dear Gilliam

I edited an article, Anwar al-Awlaki, by merely correcting a spelling mistake, from "Adultry" to "Adultery". You then sent me a message that I did so without using a reference. What reference do you suggest I use for correcting a spelling or grammatical error?

You did more than correct a spelling mistake. You added the claim "He was also known to have had regular contact with big bust porn star Kayla Kleevage". Although this may be true, please WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.– Gilliam (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not add that, maybe someone piggybacked on my edit or another user made an edit at the same time - I repeat - I ONLY changed the spelling.

Okay, but your contributions record only one edit to Anwar al-Awlaki. I recommend editing while logged in to avoid any irrelevant notices.– Gilliam (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the rights, I hope to improve Wikipedia by removing all of this vandalism. Rider ranger47 Talk 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimi Lewis/Archive[edit]

Delgada1975 did its same pattern on his previous account Cal 505, as did on Give a Little More. (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the rollback rights. --Macrakis (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Defense of Sally Kern[edit]

Can you give me any supporting evidence that Sally Kern is not a bigot? Her political career is littered with proposed bills and public statements condemning and attacking the LGBT community. This would be like leaving out the fact that the KKK is a racist organization which is crucial to understanding the group. Her bigoted actions are very much a part of who she is and to leave that out paints a incomplete description of who she is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding WP:BLP.– Gilliam (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. Neutral point of view (NPOV)- Check
    2. Verifiability (V) - Check
    3. No original research (NOR)- Check

Now change it back the way it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A bigot she may be, it is not NPOV for you to WP:LABEL her so.– Gilliam (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK but she IS a bigot. You just said so yourself. Obviously some of the stuff that was tacked onto her page were by trolls, but the Bigot part needs to stay. Stop censoring this. Also, follow me on Twitter @rayke ;)

Calling her a bigot is a statement of fact not just one individual point of view.

Without an independent, reliable source calling her a bigot, it's commentary and your own personal analysis.– Gilliam (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While all sources reflect the biases of their authors and editors, a source may be reliable in a specific context. More extensive editorial peer-review may neutralize personal biases, but may also introduce more widely-held biases through groupthink. When considering how a source's bias could affect its content, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as peer-review, editorial control, and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Should I keep going?

That's a start. It would be fine to quote notable individuals saying Kern is a bigot, but it's not permissible to label her so yourself.– Gilliam (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can work within these rules. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Niagara Catholic District School Board[edit]

Sorry I noticed there was still some vandalism left on the page after my revert and was trying to find that last clean version when you stepped in aswell.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Good that you saw it too! Cheers– Gilliam (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Do you wish to help me correct the inaccuracies in this article and add the controversy section or are you a Kevin Richardson supporter ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read Walking with lions: why there is no role for captive-origin lions Panthera leo in species restoration[edit]

Please read Walking with lions: why there is no role for captive-origin lions Panthera leo in species restoration, its a scientific paper you might actually have to Google it.

Then visit

Kevin Richardson is a self appointed expert who makes millions from filming captive lions, the world's foremost authorities on lion conservation have condemned his methods and this page is an obvious buff job written by someone close to him or one of his business associates.

Wiki lost all credibility years ago and I see things haven't changed I wont be bothering to make the changes, if you feel that this obvious buff job of a page is a fair report on the man and the controversy didn't happen then so be it. Meanwhile thousands of dollars the the public donate to help save wild lions gets spent on this uneducated idiots dangerous games with wild animals — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried the article's Talk page? It would more productive if you express your concerns there.– Gilliam (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael Tuts[edit]


I would like to inquire why you deleted the article Michael Tuts? I saved the article earlier than I intended and was still working on it. However, if I recall correctly, the content of the article as I saved it did state he was the chair of the Physics department at Columbia University, which I believe indicates he is notable.

Thanks, Astro interest (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It was nominated for speedy deletion, which you did not contest on the talk page.– Gilliam (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I would have contested it but it was deleted within a minute of its being nominated. I have followed up with the nominator. Astro interest (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gunpowder Empires[edit]

After spending some time editing an article entitled "Gunpowder Empires" I happened to look on the talk page and found that you had deleted it. I don't know what that means. The article itself existed before I edited it. I don't know why the talk page was deleted (or even what that means).

If this means that the article should not have been (re)started, I would appreciated knowing since I have no interest in spending time on something that may be deleted in the future.

Thanks. AnthroMimus (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The page Gunpowder Empires apparently exists and has at no time been deleted.– Gilliam (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I know there is an existing Gunpowder Empires article, as I said. My question is why is this on the Talk page, what is it's significance and why doesn't Gunpowder Empires have any talk page?

Wikipedia does not have a talk page with this exact title.

To start a page called Talk:Gunpowder Empires, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

22:50, 22 January 2015 Gilliam (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Gunpowder Empires (G2: Test page)

It says to ask you, which is what I am doing AnthroMimus (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Now I understand. I deleted that talk page because the former content was vandalism. Here's what was written there: "Hey guys i just found out that there is a talk section of Wikipedia.... i had no idea that this was here. This is so awesomw! Am i alone in here????HHHHHEEEEELLLLLLOOOOO!!!!!!!". – Gilliam (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. I will attempt to attach a talk page (although I've never done one before), assuming you have no objection. AnthroMimus (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


... for the bit. Cheers Face-smile.svg - DVdm (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

+1 --NeilN talk to me 18:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ...[edit]

... for the new toy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled right[edit]

Not sure if I'll ever use this right, but thanks? --I dream of horses @ 05:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: I think it is used when you move an article, as I did here. - DVdm (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a tool that is used passively not actively. At Special:Newpages, pages which have not been patrolled (or started by an autopatrolled user) are highlighted in yellow. Trusted autopatrolled users lighten the load for Newpages patrollers.– Gilliam (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't create new articles, but thanks for the trust. I'm sure there might be an unlikely situation where I might create an article, and having New Page Patrolled in the past, I'd be glad to lighten the load of others in that said situation. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


Many thanks!!!! Pinethicket (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]