User talk:Girth Summit

Maxime Demers

Hi Girth, Im working in hydrographic too as a marine geomatician here in Canada. Maxime Demers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.215.32.23 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010‎ (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christine Blasey Ford

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christine Blasey Ford. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Dogs

	Dog Lover
	To the one who loves dogs! And the one who is very nice! 24escheuanimal (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

213.78.70.193

Hi Girth, You make me sad - reference 'Me , sitting at my desk, now' :) And juvenile is a great word! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.70.193 (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't be sad - look, I gave you a new section. Juvenile is quite a good word, although it's not really up there with kerfuffle and bamboozle. We still can't add them willy-nilly to articles without sourcing. I'm sure you really are sitting at your desk, but I can't verify that fact. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Dogmatic.. another good word, as is pedantic and doctrinaire. Not sure I approve of the use of "will-nilly" not quite in keeping with the high brow nature of this fine online data repository. Honestly, i expect better from you Girth :) p.s. I do like my new section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.70.193 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing afghans in Germany and afghans in Russia afghan diaspora

We need to change it to German afghans, Russian afghans, Turkish afghans, Indian afghans, Swedish afghans. Please change title in Wikipedia please get everybody involved to change it. Sameem123 (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sameem123, thanks for your note. My user talk page isn't the place to have this discussion however - you need to go to the talk page for each of the articles in question, and make your case there. You will need to explain why you think we need to make these changes - it's not enough just to say 'we need to change it' - you need to say 'we need to change it because...'. Thanks! GirthSummit _(blether) 07:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel that’s all afghan kids who are born in different countries like afghans in Germany or other countries are ethnic groups you can change it to afghan Germans and Swedish afghans and British afghans its afghan diaspora. There’s my explanation. Sameem123 (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, Sameem123, you can explain that on the talk page of each of the articles, rather than here. Thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletions from Keith M. Davidson

The IP that made this edit resolves to LA. What do you want to bet it's Davidson himself? Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Very possible. More likely his intern/flunky, who's getting shouted at right now because the stuff is still up. Gotta feel for the guy, but you can't just go around deleting all the stuff your boss doesn't like... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

+1 Based on what I've read about him, Davidson might just be as likely to take this directly to the Foundation. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Please make the article more balanced

Dear Sir

You point out the fact that most scholars reject the historicity of the Bible. But these are biased researchers for who it will be hard to accept that what they reject is true. Most evangelical scholars accept that it is historically accurate MilBenedict (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@MilBenedict: See the note I left on your talk page. If you want to add something about what evangelical scholars think, you will need reliable sources, and to add content at an appropriate point in the article. What you absolutely must not do is insert your own words into the text of a direct quote taken from an attributed scholarly source. I would also add that if a view is held by the overwhelming majority of historians, then that view represents the historical consensus, even if you don't agree with it - it doesn't need to be obfuscated with phrases like 'the consensus of liberal scholars' or whatever. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of scholars who are not evangelical or practicing catholics or orthodox donnot accept the Biblie’s historicity. The opposite is true for the evangelical scholars. Both choose to focus and interpret the evidence accordingly. When you say majority what do you mean? The vast majority or Biblical researchers are found in Christian universities. The faculties devoted to the Bible are relatively small is secular universities. And many like Kennet Kitchen teach in secular universities and yet support the reliability of the text do the Bible MilBenedict (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@MilBenedict: First things first - don't start a new section every time you add a new comment, and please read WP:INDENT for notes on how to indent conversations to make it easier to follow who's saying what.

To address your comment: the consensus of historians is the consensus of all historians, of any faith or none. We're not talking about bible scholars, we're talking about historians whose studies touch upon this issue - anyone working on the period that the bible covers, but it might also touch on the history of ideas, history of literature, history of early languages, etc. It is not necessary for someone specifically to be a scholar of the bible to have a view on this - historians are trained to evaluate the sources available for their area of study. Now, please read the links I've provided on your talk page, and consider whether you would be able to write some content for the page which is reliably sources and could be put on the page to fill in some of the gaps you think it has. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the SPI

It seemed pretty obvious but I was too busy to do anything. But you need to move your last comment as it's in the wrong section. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Done. I'm on a bit of a learning curve at the moment, I appreciate the friendly steer. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Girth Summit. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", 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:Administrators' guide/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! -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left a comment for you at WP:PERM/R. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Amanda, I'll start having a look at Huggle and STiki now. Regarding your message, I' afraid I can't remember the specific edit that you were referring to, and of course now it's oversighted I can't check; however, I will make sure I read the relevant guidelines carefully and familiarise myself with what does need oversighting and how to get help when it's required. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Cummulonimbus article deleted section

Dear Girth, I deleted the Commercial Aviation section on purpose because, as an airline pilot, it contained some very bad advices resulting from misinterpreting Robert Buck's book, Weather Flying.

• First misconception: flying around a thunderstorm is dangerous.

In the book, pages 261 and 262, Buck discusses an hypothetical flight through a cold front in a small airplane flying around 10,000ft. What the author really says is that there is a risk associated when trying to climb to go through an opening in the line of clouds as it may outclimb the aircraft in an altitude where the stall speed and max speed are very close to each other.

• Second misconception: fly through the heaviest rain portion of a cummulonimbus cloud.

In page 267, Robert Buck explains that before airborne weather radar, pilots would pick the darkest part of the storm if they had to go through it. The author continues explaining that after the invention of the radar, the heaviest radar echo, which was due to heavy rain consisted in the storm core, so pilots began avoiding it. But the heaviest turbulence isn't exactly in the middle of the heavy rain, but very close, so avoiding the rain area by a good margin, you'll probably miss the worst of the turbulence. If you want, I can reproduce both excerpts from the book to you. Regards, s_arman 22:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir.arman (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note. I suggest you bring thiss up at the article talk page, where all interested parties can review your comments. Simply deleting the entire section might not be the best approach. cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 22:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How to pages

Wasn't thinking... Thanks! I need to go to bed. Jim1138 (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The Alt-right page

Hi, I put in the quotation marks again as I explained in my original edit. Please understand the use of correct English in this instance. If a conservative uses "Alt-left" as a smear, they are not implying a false equivalence to the Alt-right. They are implying an ACTUAL equivalence. The implication of the equivalence is not "false" to the person making the implication. It is only "false" to the commentator on the implication, such as Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League (whom is obviously biased against the implication). He calls it a "false equivalence" in the linked source. It should therefore be in quotation marks only. If you remove these quotation marks, you are making this page non-neutral, and slanted towards his opinion, making it into a fact. It is not a fact that far left has no equivalence to the far right in terms of violence. It is an OPINION only. Many will disagree with this opinion. The Far left are well known to use violence and direct action as a tactic, as are the far right. Quotation marks must remain for quoted opinions. Thanks for your understanding. Transcendent28 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Transcendent28: See MOS:QUOTE. Quotation marks are to be used to denote attributed quotations, not to imply an air of doubt about something. The use of the quotes is correct in the second time that false equivalence is used in the paragraph, since the phrase is directly attributed to Mark Pitcavage, but in the first sentence there is no direct attribution so the quote marks are not necessary. The whole paragraph is rather awkward and repetitive however, so it might be better to reword the whole thing? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I tried removing the "false" words before but someone removed my changes due to the sentence being sourced. The trouble is, the source is actually a quote of someone's opinion. Without quotation marks, it's stating the "false equivalence" as a fact. It's not about casting doubt on it, it's about being politically neutral. If someone makes a smear against someone else, it is highly possible that the smearer believes their smear to be true, eg. if you call someone an "idiot", you might not be making a false accusation of them being an idiot. You could be ACTUALLY calling them an idiot. It's the same with the smear "Alt-left". I don't want this to turn into an edit war, because I'll get banned. Would you agree though, that removing the first instance of "false" would be the right thing to do, and then keep quotation marks round the second "False equivalence"? Transcendent28 (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)