User talk:Gulbenk

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

Welcome!

Hello, Gulbenk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Fayenatic London 23:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing Protocol[edit]

Hello Fayenatic London. I think I've gotten off to a rocky start, since I replied under your talk page, rather than here. Hopefully you will respond back on this page, so I will receive notice of your reply. Gulbenk (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gulbenk. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Atlanta[edit]

Do you have a reliable source that supports that information? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can add a reference to clean that up.Gulbenk (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Barek, before I add the reference, let me know if it passes muster with you. It comes from an authoritative source (see the bottom of the referenced page for the particulars) but I would rather be sure before adding. Don't care to be deleted a second time... http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2207

I'm not familiar with the source; but from an initial glance it appears to meet the threshold of a reliable source - that should work fine. Thanks for locating a ref and improving Wikipedia's content. If you need help formatting the citation, let me know. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review, and the offer of help. I think I did it correctly. I'm forcing myself to learn the process. Slow...but, for the most part, rewarding. Gulbenk (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Barek, saw your revisions. Nice work. Thanks. Much better.Gulbenk (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi again! I recommend that you install WP:POPUPS, as it makes it very quick and easy to fix such links in a single action. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gulbenk. You have new messages at Jhortman's talk page.
Message added 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jhortman (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gulbenk. You have new messages at Jhortman's talk page.
Message added 03:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jhortman (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Tehran Stock Exchange[edit]

Hi, my changes to Tehran Stock Exchange were relatively minor and I will honestly admit I don't even remember making them now. So feel free to look into doing a GAR, but other than agreeing with you, I don't really have any additional perspective to add. Cheers, Epistemophiliac (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, all input is appreciated. The more I dig into this, the more it looks like the GA was a bit rushed. Gulbenk (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Dating convention[edit]

Hi - I've reverted you as we have guidelines on making changes at WP:ERA. I hope you understand. Any questions, please ask at my talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gulbenk. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Lakeside HS AAAA -> AAAAA[edit]

Unfortunately I am not familiar with the school so I cannot be certain when the change from AAAA to AAAAA occurred. I suspect it happened when GHSA moved to having six classifications (from A to AAAAAA), since some of the schools that I am more familiar with went from AAAA to AAAAA at the same time. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe look at the history of the GHSA region navboxes? --96.32.138.125 (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gulbenk. You have new messages at Talk:Initial public offering#Corruption.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EllenCT (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again and financial risk inversion[edit]

Hi Gulbenk, thanks again for your help on the IPO article. You made that much easier than I thought it was going to be. I absolutely think you should add the SEC regulation because I'm sure it was being trampled and it's really not fair to the balance of the article to leave readers hanging about whether the allegations, if true, reflect kosher behavior on the part of the brokers. If I had any familiarity with them I would do it right now.

Also I want to ask you about [1] which I have noticed the same effect in bond funds, where "low risk" produced the greatest return for the vast majority of time frames I've looked at in US markets. What do you think about this? I want to edit financial risk and maybe stock market etc. on this topic, but I'm not entirely sure what to say about it. Maybe you know somewhere else it's been covered? I'm pretty sure it has to do with larger firms' ability to hedge the hell out of everything and invest their spare cash in broad high-return concerns that they probably have a lot of asymmetric hidden information about. I would love to know your thoughts. EllenCT (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Greeting... and relevance/verifiability[edit]

Greetings Gulbenk. Thank you for your note. The edit did not comply with Wikipedia's policy regarding Wikipedia:Verifiability. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Phineas Gage[edit]

You thanked me for this edit [2] so (assuming you didn't click actually mean to click the nearby Undo link) thanks for the thanks. I'm wondering, though, how the situation came to your attention -- perhaps you have PG on your watchlist. If you do you may know that -- the recent brief flurry aside -- I work mostly in isolation there. For the moment there's one other editor who engages at all regarding this article, and I'd very much like there to be more (no offense at all to Mirokado, it's just that two is still a lonely number). Would you be willing? EEng (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, PG is on my watchlist, by virtue of a previous and rather ham-fisted edit to the "See also" section. I'm quite impressed with your work at Phineas Gage, as well as the organization and style of the article. While I appreciate your request to engage in future editing, I doubt that I could do as good a job as you have done. PG will remain on my watchlist, though. I would be happy to strike down vandals, should you not get to them first. Regards! Gulbenk (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tintin in the Land of the Soviets[edit]

Thank you for contacting me on this issue, Gulbenk. First, I apologise for having to undo your edits to Tintin in the Land of the Soviets; I do not relish undoing people's work, and understand that it is demoralising to go to the effort of adding something only to have it removed immediately after. However, I felt that there was sufficient reason to remove your edit to what has only recently become a Featured Article. While I am no Holodomor denier and have no intrinsic problem with the Tintin in the Land of the Soviets page linking to Wikipedia's Holodomor page, none of the Tintinological literature that was used to build up the article actually refers to the Holodomor. If Michael Farr or Benoit Peeters, or any other Tintinologist thought the Holodomor was relevant to Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, and stated so in their publications, then of course I would have included it here in this article. But they didn't, so I haven't. In that respect I fear that including references to Holodomor (or Soviet vote-rigging, human rights abuses etc) here would be in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Regarding my initial suspicion that your edit might be NPOV, it was based on a fear that this was simply another edit based on anti-communist or anti-Soviet bias, something that the Tintin in the Land of the Soviets page has faced before. Here at Wikipedia we have a big problem with editors (usually anonymous IPs or recently registered editors) simply going on to pages and pushing a very clear political agenda. So I hope that that clarifies my concern on that issue. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to take this issue over to Talk:Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, where it can be discussed a bit more widely. Does this sound okay for you ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to think about this idea yet Gulbenk ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Midnightblueowl, and thanks for the follow-up. Yes, I would very much like to try making a contribution to that article, along the lines discussed, starting with a discussion at the Talk page. However, more pressing concerns have delayed me. I hope to free up some time in the near future. Again, thanks. Gulbenk (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, real life stuff takes precedent ! Whenever you have time to discuss the issue over at the talk page, just let me know! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2013[edit]

You're invited! Please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 7. To get regular alerts regarding Atlanta meetups, please add your name to this page. Ganeshk (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Ira Roe Foster[edit]

Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 224. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Done! Gulbenk (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)



DYK for Ira Roe Foster[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Geologic map of Georgia[edit]

The article Geologic map of Georgia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Geologic map of Georgia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buffbills7701 -- Buffbills7701 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


The Bhopal Disaster - neutral enough?[edit]

Hi, Gulbenk! I suppose it was you who added "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2012)" to the Bhopal disaster article. Would you be so kind and remove it? I asked you what is wrong in my book "The Bhopal Saga" (the encyclopedia of the Bhopal disaster), and you have still not answered. So how can you know the article is not neutral? Another important editor is UCC/Dow, and they seem to have nothing to say to the facts that I present. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ingrid Eckerman! The reasoning behind the neutrality banner was discussed during the GAR, but I am sorry that I did not respond directly to your question, as I should have. That was an oversight. The one authoritative review of "The Bhopal Saga" (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257585/) praises the work for its description of "long-term health effects documented in the exposed population and [for suggesting] what might be done to improve health care for the victims." But it also highlights unsupported assumptions, selective use of data, and factual errors. The review further notes that you, as the author of the work, manifest "biases against industry and government".
I fully acknowledge the significant amount of effort that you have put into this article. You have made 610 edits to the Bhopal Disaster, which represents 16.88% of all edits made to date. Your book, and other works, are cited as references 72 times in the article. You, more than anyone else, have shaped this article into its present form. That, unfortunately, also imprints the article with the biases noted in the review of your book.
I am encouraged that some examples of bias, and use of weasel words, have been reworked since the GAR. But more work remains. I had hoped that the neutrality banner would not just serve as a cautionary note to readers, but also serve to stimulate other editors to become involved in the article. And some have. There have been about 135 edits since the neutrality banner was added, but the majority (I believe) are yours.
I greatly admire your efforts to chronicle the cause and description of the release, and its terrible aftermath. Your passions and concern for the welfare of the victims is unquestioned. But it is precisely those passions which must be tempered, with objectivity and factual data, if we are to arrive at a reliable and neutral article.
I would be glad to review the article, again, to see what effect those 135 recent edits have had. I would hope that the article is indeed "neutral enough"... or at least moving in that direction. Give me until the end of the month. Gulbenk (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi[edit]

Could you please take a look at Elsa Collin and Brita von Horn. Would appreciate it!--BabbaQ (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Hello BabbaQ. I've looked at the articles, what sort of help do you desire? Gulbenk (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Elsa Collin[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Leo Frank[edit]

You reverted me for adding more of Slaton's statement? Why in the world? Why do you call it editorial or arguing with Slaton? Did you check the source? "(In any event, the performance of my duty under the Constitution is a matter of my conscience. The responsibility rests where the power is reposed. Judge Roan, with that awful sense of responsibility, which probably came over him as he thought of that Judge before whom he would shortly appear, calls to me from another world to request that I do that which he should have done. I can endure misconstruction, abuse and condemnation, but I cannot stand the constant companionship of an accusing conscience, which would remind me in every thought that I, as a Governor of Georgia, failed to do what I thought to be right. There is a territory “beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT and absolute certainty”, for which the law provides in allowing life imprisonment instead of execution. This case has been marked by doubt. The trial judge doubted. Two Judges of the Supreme Court of Georgia doubted. Two Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States doubted. One of the three Prison Commissioners doubted." You won't find me adding editorial or unsourced quotes. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Nothing personal. I do not question your integrity and experience as an editor. But the issue is not doubt. Slaton puts that to rest in the sentence you quote. The issue is absolute certainty, which can (in most cases during this era) only be achieved with a valid confession or undisputed observation (the supposed observer in this case did not meet those standards). So the addition of this "doubt" sentence is not supportive of Slaton's eventual reasoning. I posted to the Talk page, after my edit, to explain the reasoning, hoping that you would see it. Gulbenk (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Hang the Jew" citation[edit]

Is there not any book other than Dinnerstein or any non-Dinnerstein derivative source that has that quote in it? I'd imagine one of the other major writers would have mentioned it. I didn't see it in Oney from a brief glance, but I would think that another source exists.

By the way, I requested a peer review of the Leo Frank article, so hopefully we can get some good feedback! I fixed some other references, so I think it's pretty close to GA quality. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. I have not found a pre-Dinnerstein source for this statement (other than the one Dinnerstein himself uses, which is highly suspect). Nothing in the contemporary Atlanta newspapers. That is not to say that one doesn't exist...somewhere. So the tag is one way of asking editors to look for one. So far, all I've found are sources quoting (or misquoting) Dinnerstein. Gulbenk (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Leo Frank peer review[edit]

I mentioned it in the above section, but the Leo Frank article is currently undergoing peer review. It is being reviewed by Brianboulton, who is not a Leo Frank expert but has significantly contributed to about 80 featured articles, including several dozen biographies, and will give us a lot of good feedback on the article. If you want to comment on anything or ask any questions, feel free to do so on the peer review page. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I got a peer review for the second half of the article and wanted to ask a few things that I wasn't sure about. I have these as double bullet points in the review as well.
  • Why was Conley held in custody for two weeks, after no traces of blood were found on his shirt?
I just said in the review that he was enough of a suspect to warrant holding on to, but didn't add anything in the article clarifying this as I wasn't sure what to say that was definitive and could be sourced.
  • I am curious to know why "officials" thought Frank would be more secure in a minimum-security facility (we later learn that his throat was slashed by another inmate)
I think the article means to say that they originally thought Frank would be a better fit in Milledgeville, although the throat slashing incident disproved this.
  • None of the lynchers were identified? Did nobody bother to look at the photographs?
I don't think the photos were released right away, but I wanted to make sure as the fact that none of the lynchers were prosecuted doesn't make sense.

If you could clarify these points for me, I'd appreciate it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll have to review some of the source material, to give you a better answer. But it is my recollection that the investigation proceeded initially on the presumption that a black man had committed the crime (because of the "night witch" note, and the prevailing stereotype of jews as peaceful, law abiding, folks.). So Newt Lee was the first suspect. That was a dead end. Then the investigation turned to Conley. Perhaps he was initially arrested because of the shirt, but early questioning indicated that he clearly knew something about the events. The shirt became a minor matter. When Conley kept changing his story and lying, they turned up the heat by throwing him in a basement isolation cell for a week. I don't know if they questioned him during that time, or simply left him down there to stew. In any case, that "technique" extends the timeline (after the shirt evidence didn't pan out).
  • Minimum-security inmates are (on balance) less violent individuals, financial criminals and so forth. Maximum-security is usually designated for those who present an escape risk, or individuals who pose a clear threat to society. It would be more dangerous to place someone so despised as Frank among hard-core violent criminals.
  • The lynching photos were released (and widely sold) soon after the event. But I'm not sure if one can differentiate (just by the photos) perpetrators and observers. Clearly, they were known, and could have been named and prosecuted. But there was no desire to do so, and very little likelihood of a conviction. Gulbenk (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, I noticed your GA nomination in the section below this one on your talk page, and the fact that it took almost 6 months to get a review. I might just go through the peer review and make sure the citations are correct throughout, and nominate the Frank article for FA early next year. That way, it can still be Today's Featured Article on August 17 of next year, the 100th anniversary of the lynching. Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
You are most welcome. I think the peer review process was helpful for this article, and has improved it. But I do not agree with every change. You are aware of my concerns with the "hang the jew" statement. I don't think the peer review fix was a good one in that instance. To state that "one eyewitness" observed this event is wrong. We actually know that this quote is an allegation, made many months after the fact, in a northern paper, by an "anonymous individual" who claimed to be an Atlantan and a eyewitness. But that explanation is too long and awkward to be included in the article. So the "better source" tag still seems to be a more eloquent way of looking for a contemporary (hopefully local) source for this statement. Gulbenk (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think this should just be taken out entirely or replaced? I think the article won't be incomplete simply for omitting a claim that an antisemitic chant was repeated outside the courtroom. It would be good to find a solid source for it, but I'd imagine that an Atlanta paper would have said something about that if it were in fact true. Perhaps it could be replaced with another statement made on the next page of Dinnerstein where he says that the governor alerted the National Guard to a possible riot and a North Georgia newspaperman who had attended the trial wrote that Frank would have been lynched sooner had the verdict been not guilty. This would also demonstrate the antisemitism among much of the Atlanta public, but with a more reliable source. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Taking out the "hang the jew" sentence is better than leaving in the current version, or adding my far-too-long explanation of the source. I'm not familiar with the specific statements you suggest, but I think that something like that would be a good replacement. Do the sentences you suggest demonstrate antisemitism, or just the anger of the crowd? Gulbenk (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There are two paragraphs at the end of the chapter - one that talks about explicitly antisemitic remarks, including the "Hang the Jew" claim, and a second one that doesn't explicitly mention antisemitism but shows that many Atlantans were hostile to Frank.
Here's the first one that deals with the antisemitic remarks (Dinnerstein p. 60):
  • The antagonism toward Frank expressed itself more clearly than just a "spirit" in the air. The defense attorneys and Judge Roan had received communications during the trial to the effect that they would not leave the courtroom alive if the "damned Jew" were turned loose. There is some indication that the jurors were similarly threatened. Crowds outside the courthouse chanted, "Hang the Jew." As early as May, 1913, "a well-known Atlanta woman" wrote to the Georgian that this "is the first time a Jew has ever been in any serious trouble in Atlanta, and see how ready is every one to believe the worst of him."
Then comes the next paragraph, which doesn't mention his Judaism but might still be of interest. (Dinnerstein, pp. 60-61):
  • The Governor of Georgia had consulted with the commanding officer of the national guard regiment in Atlanta just before the trial ended, and had alerted him to the possible danger of a riot after the jury returned its verdict. The militia commandant said his troops would be ready if necessary. Two years later a North Georgia newspaperman, who had attended the trial, wrote, "There is no use mincing words when a human life is at stake. If the jury in the Frank case had brought in a verdict of 'not guilty' the defendant would have been lynched."
I'm thinking the latter sentence in the second paragraph might be a good replacement, although it doesn't specifically mention antisemitism. I wrote the paragraphs above to clarify it and get your take. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. The second sentences seem to work best. They actually dovetail rather nicely into the following parts of the paragraph: the Cossack simile, and the Lindemann quote. The first Dinnerstein sentences would just dig us deeper into the same hole, I'm afraid. Gulbenk (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I took out the first quote that you added, since the two sentences preceding it make the quote somewhat redundant, and the quote started without saying "According to Dinnerstein" or anything like that, so it's not apparent where the quote is from. I also separated the paragraph into two. I did like the other changes, however, and left them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonystewart14 (talkcontribs) 05:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice work. Gulbenk (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ira Roe Foster[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ira Roe Foster you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 65.131.175.141 -- 65.131.175.141 (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You undid my edit on Georgia state flag. Why?[edit]

Undid revision 636082013 by 2001:4642:E772:0:4CB9:58C3:3462:2187 as Unsupported

You marked my claim that the state report on the 1956 Flag change found the the reasons given for the change unconvincing, and interpreted the change as an act of defiance against federal desegregation as undocumented.

I would like to know exactly why?

Do you disagree with my reading of the report? Should I include more qoutes from the report? Anything else?

My main issue with the article as it stands, is that it qoutes isolated sentences from the discussion in the report, leaving the impression that this is in fact the report's conclusion. Which, as far as I can see, it is not.

Professor Droevell (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Professor Droevell. Thank you for your interest in this article, and your desire to contribute to Wikipedia. Your edit, which I undid, read "The report concludes that neither argument is believable, and interprets the change as an act of defiance against federal desegregation." I believe that statement to be unsupported. The report does not contain any quotes from the period, supporting the notion that the flag was changed in anticipation of the upcoming centennial. And it does state (although not as part of it's "Conclusion" section) a belief that this argument was made after the fact. However, the report also contains several contemporay quotes supporting the second argument: that the action was taken to honor those who fought for the Confederacy. Those are, in fact, the only quotes from the period, from anyone involved in the process (the designer, sponsors, and legislators), which give us a stated reason for changing the flag. The report does not conclude that this argument is unbelievable. Finally, while the report does go to great length to detail the atmosphere of defiance that existed in the 1956 Georgia Legislature, it does not have one contemporary quote of defiance (related to the flag) by anyone involved in the process. If the report strongly implies guilt by association, this could probably be said for any legislation that passed in 1956. While the report goes to great length to specify a series of bills of passionate definance, all of which received overwhelming support, like the Interposition Resolution (which passed 179-1), it also notes that the flag bill received such a dispassionate reception that nearly 1/3 of the legislators failed to even vote on it.Gulbenk (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello back, Gulbenk

Thank you for your response, even if I do not agree with everything. First, the report clearly did not find the reasoning behind the "pay homage to the confederate soldiers" all that believable. How else would you interpret three stripes “were meaningless.”69 Those “meaningless” stripes Groover was refered to were proudly lifted directly from the first Confederate National Flag. Placed on the state flag in 1879 by Senator Herman Perry, a former Confederate officer, the alternating red and white stripes (or bars) paid homage to the Confederate veterans of the American Civil War. In spite of that, the 1956 General Assembly changed the state flag, in an atmosphere of preserving segregation and resentment toward the United States government, as a symbolic gesture to show Washington that Georgia’s leaders intended to uphold what they “stood for, will stand for, and will fight for.

And given that a senate report's conclusion was that the flag change was an act of defiance, my statement was a historical fact: The people writing this report for the Georgian Senate one year before the flag change did conlude as I said. Whether they was right, that is another matter, we may disagree on that one, but it is not our task to conclude, but to report facts around the history of the flag. And this report, whatever we think of its merrits, is part of that history, and should not be discarded, even if you might disagree with it.

Regarding your reasons for disagreeing, I am not convinced by them. As you note, the quotes supporting the defiance theory are not from that time period. But they are from people involved in the process. But note that also most of the quotes supporting the "honoring the soldiers" reason is newer. The report states that very little exist of reasons from the proceedings themself. The quotes from that time that I have seen, is ambigouse. Also note that "honoring the confederate soldiers" and "act of defiance" is not mutually exclusive. Why this sudden need, in a time of a major disagreement with federal government, to honor the soldiers of a previous rebbelion against federal interference? Especially since the preexisting flag, designed much shorter time after said rebbelion, was designed to do exactly that. And if the report is to be believed, no contemporary mention of the 100 years anniversery is found, so that explanation does not ring true.

It is well known that people sometimes find it convient to disguise their real motivations in controversial matters, and espesially so in retrospect. So the authors attempt on reading the motivation out from things outside of the actors stated reasons should not be dismissed so easily.

As for the lack of enthusiasm for the flag change, compared to the support for the clearly degregation related bills, that can be explained in a lot of ways. The people in the senate clearly believed very strongly in segregation, and supported that strongly. But one thing is to support the bills handeling a specific disagreement, another thing is supporting a case which is just a silly act of defiance. Do we really want to replace the current flag for this one issue? Do we really want to rip up hundred year old wounds for this one issue? IF the represantativs did think this was an act of difiance over segregation, it is not hard to imagine that some people that supported all the other stuff would be less that thrilled by this one.

So, while I do not know whether the people writing the report were right or not, I am not convinced by your arguments for dismissing it.

But all this is moot, as it is not in our place to accept it or reject it, just to recognice that the report exists and what it says. Is status as a Senat report issued just before thenext flag change is enough to give it relevance. Professor Droevell (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Gulbenk. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal talk 18:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ira Roe Foster[edit]

The article Ira Roe Foster you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Ira Roe Foster for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)