User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad

This is GeneralizationsAreBad's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

GeneralizationsAreBad is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If I have made a mistake of any kind, please let me know so we can discuss it.

My schedule fluctuates, so apologies in advance for any unplanned absences.

Congrats

Hello GAB. I saw this and I wanted to say congratulations on becoming an SPI clerk. After months (years) of watching your work on these as a regular editor I know that you will do well. I also know that you have good admins to work with when question come up. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Thank you very much - that's quite kind of you. Like Wikipedia generally, there is a learning curve, but I think I'll gradually come to grips with it. I enjoy this sort of thing :) GAB^gab 18:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI opening I just royally muffed up

Just WP:TROUT me already. I thought I was reopening the SPI for User:Michaeluzomam but confused myself into accidentally opening it under the nonexistent username User:Michaeluzomamichael. I don't know how to fix this without bollixing things up even worse, so I am abasing myself to you, o noble SPI clerk trainee GAB! Thank you for rectifying my end-of-the-day cluelessness! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Julietdeltalima: Hey, no worries. Just a couple days ago, I tagged a sock and closed the case without said sock actually blocked. Cheers, GAB^gab 13:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving training SPI's after you close them?

Hi. Can I go ahead and archive the Swag master joe SPI, which you closed a few days ago? Or is archival part of the processing which the note says I'm supposed to allow you to do without interference? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales: Thanks for asking - I don't think there's a problem with that. GAB^gab 13:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you

You say you "want to improve Wikipedia's much-maligned reputation, and transform it into a credible, respected source of research and news information, free from bias and editorializing. I am indeed opinionated, but also a strong believer in objective, judicious, and rigorous writing. I understand the importance of maintaining and improving existing content, as well as creating new content; I enjoy sprucing up articles in disrepair."

Wiki's maligned-reputation is created by bias & terrible scholarship. Are you willing / able to join the discussion & improve things??? See Yom Kippur / Talk. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Yom_Kippur -- Purrhaps (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll take a look. Regards, GAB^gab 12:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who should "close" an SPI

Hi. Just to be sure you get the right info, anyone is allowed to close an SPI — but only clerks or CheckUsers should archive a case. (See WP:SPI/AI.) — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales: Sorry but not quite right. Any administrator is allowed to close an SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks again. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Would you like me to refrain from closing cases in the future? Regards, GAB^gab 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, a clerk can close an SPI. When I said administrator, that meant a non-clerk administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. Just wanted to be sure on that point. GAB^gab 21:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some religion scholar

Thanks very much for handling my request.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Sure, you're welcome - that's what I'm here for. GAB^gab 22:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junior5a SPI

Hey GAB, I don't want to overwhelm the SPI with every account that's created, but they did create more. Should I hold off adding them? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not - I'll add them to the list. GAB^gab 21:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Law & Policy Review

Your comment "the refs don't indicate how the articles are themselves notable" is confusing to me since no other law review Wikipedia pages cite this information. See for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_University_Law_Review and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Law_Journal.

Why aren't these sections deleted as well? Is the problem with the word "notable?" If so, what if I changed that section to "Past Articles/Authors" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrp609 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. First, please note that just because another article has or does not have something, it doesn't necessarily mean that something is desirable or even acceptable. Plenty of articles have problems that need to be fixed, so we typically try to look at each article individually, rather than comparing them to others. The word "notable" refers to the fact that there is no source provided that independently notes that these articles are notable in themselves. See also our notability guideline. The guideline cited by Randykitty, WP:JWG, says that "Lists of contributors and full editorial boards should be left out of articles, unless there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." That's not a hard-and-fast rule, but advice. I would be happy to discuss this further on the article's talk page, along with Randykitty. Thanks, GAB^gab 22:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I am happy to discuss with Randykitty in that forum but am having trouble accessing it. I click on talk part of the article's page, but there seems to be no where to add a section to talk. While that guideline cited makes sense, I didn't add a list of contributors - in the journal's history there have been hundreds of contributors. I simply added to the existing section a few of the articles published (probably around 20 - a fraction of the total amount). I thought this was helpful to give a flavor for the authors and types of pieces that we have published over our history.

Vrp609 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vrp609, given that you say "that we have published over our' history" (my emphasis), I think you'd do good to also read WP:COI. I also left a message about this issue (as I now see with the same gist as the one above) on my talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information Randykitty. I actually read this information before I edited anything and I have no COI to disclose as I am not a paid editor for the journal and have no financial incentive or ties whatsoever. But I appreciate the heads up. Vrp609 (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]