User talk:E.M.Gregory

For the Wikipedia encyclopedia article, see Reader.

This editor is an
Experienced Editor
and is entitled to display this
Service Badge.

It is The Reader that we should consider on every edit we make to Wikipedia.

(Thanks to Alan Liefting)‎

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Braganza

Delete is fine with me - I wasn't arguing to keep. I just wanted to clarify the odd comments on weekly newspapers. (though ironically, none of the sources in question were weekly newspapers!) Nfitz (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Great Works

E.M. You have created some great articles on WP in important areas that might not have been covered otherwise. Keep up the great work! Cypresscross (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I am awarding the Original Barnstar to E.M.Gregory for expanding the breadth of knowledge in Wikipedia through article creation. OtterAM (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Google Books

Better to use google books then contemporary newspaper articles I have added one ref but you can continue the work.Its just simple google search [1] Shrike (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request - Ali Khamenei (recovering important content)

Talk:Ali Khamenei#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2017 (2)--181.90.21.85 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

This is WP:SYNTH. Please be more careful.- MrX 16:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Background/context to the Louvre Carroussel Machete Attack

So, The Local issued a useful backgrounder on how jihadists have specifically attacked policemen/soldiers in France from 2012 to 2017, and of course the Louvre terror attack is included in the backgrounder. I added it to the Louvre thing, as I think it helps put the Louvre attack in context, but apparently others think it's better to delete the addition than to somehow improve it, say, by relocating it. So right now it stands deleted. What do you think? Constructive? XavierItzm (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Im Tirzu

Could you revert this guy? (only extended-confirmed users can edit) Obviously Algemeiner is not a "blog", but a known Jewish newspaper. Thanks.--181.93.229.41 (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm not sure how to get in touch. I want to ask some question about the removal of a Wikipage. contact me by email Johnnyvedmore@gmail.com JohnnyVedmore (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• You are very kind, but but my wikipedia editing has been plagued by trolls and sockpuppets. I simply lack the time to deal with emails from bad actors, so I removed my email contact. I regret that I cannot respond by email, but I do try to respond to messages on this page. Best,E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nominations

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Palestinian Authority Martyr's Fund at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Force Act at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. All these notices mean is that you forgot to list the nomination at WP:DYKN. I do that sometimes, too. I listed them for you under June 5, the date they were created/expansion began, here and here. When you add the template to this page, it's important to write "Adding Template:Did you know nominations/Name of article" in the edit summary.

Yes, I am feeling better now. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW you'll have to submit QPQ reviews for both nominations. And there's a missing word in the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Force Act. Yoninah (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

format

Please consider saving bullets for our not-votes; For enumerated lists you can use the pound sign or just number them manually. For adding reply comments to someone else, skip the bullets and instead use indentation per the help page on threading. Just makes it easier to read and distill the major points of view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources and wording

Thank you for updating the sources, and removing the weasel wording which was in the phrasing. The sources need to be tight and accurate, and the information needs to be non-speculative. This has zero to do with liking or disliking this is about having a quality reflection of the sources, with verified information which leaves no room for misinterpretation, questioning, POV, or speculation. Please bear this in mind when dealing with articles, as the quality is what is key and all claims must be firm, and firmly backed up by sources which reflect the attributions. With that in mind please continue to improve Wikipedia, in line with the manual of style. Sport and politics (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

For expanding and improving 2016 Hanover stabbing that article after reverting your POV mass deletion? Yeah, I did that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please take a compliment and constructive tips. Otherwise it feels that this is being unnecessarily confrontational. I suggest reading the linked to articles, and continuing to constructively edit. Sport and politics (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

hahahaha I am not going to comment any more than that, but we are on the same page ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment

User:E.M.Gregory, there is a WP:RfC on the Talk-Page of the article Husan. Free free to respond.Davidbena (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Taylor Force Act

Hello! Your submission of Taylor Force Act at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 21:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your great help here on Wikipedia. Rævhuld (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism in Europe 2014-present

I thought you might have interest in the this page. The full protection was just lifted today, and I think we could do well to improve the page (as well as stop it from being censored). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014%E2%80%93present) ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the page is blocked from editing? I was going to add some material, but there is no edit button.User:El cid, el campeador.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Persistent blanking of sourced content by a /certain user/. Literally the same day it was unlocked lol. Sorry about that. Check out the talk page, it's a bit ridiculous. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• From being on the talkpage do you now see how irrational that page makes people act? It's a quagmire. I'm trying to stay out but it's so hard. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pietro Campori

Thanks for taking the time to review it. You accidentally missed the tick on it. Would you mind going back and approving it? Thanks again! TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Organized crime

	Hello, E.M.Gregory. You are invited to join WikiProject Organized crime, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Organized crime topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 21:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Western guilt (concept). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Removing page tag after making well-sourced edits meeting objections voiced in tag is not edit warring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Palestinian Authority Martyr's Fund

On 8 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Palestinian Authority Martyr's Fund, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Palestinian Authority Martyr's Fund pays monthly stipends to the families of suicide bombers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Palestinian Authority Martyr's Fund. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Palestinian Authority Martyr's Fund), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Taylor Force Act

On 9 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Taylor Force Act, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Taylor Force Act, proposed by US Senator Lindsey Graham, would prevent the Palestinian National Authority from using American economic aid to pay terrorists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor Force Act. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Taylor Force Act), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk) 00:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 Gothenburg terrorism plot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Gothenburg terrorism plot is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Gothenburg terrorism plot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Gabriel (3rd nomination)

You have made an accusation here that I have changed comments on the above page. Other than the insertion of one colon to help format the thread, I have changed no comment of any one else. I have inserted a comment into the thread at the appropriate location to answer a previously made point, but then so have you. Can you explain please. To be honest at present your comments feel a lot like bullying. I am posting this here rather than in the deletion discussion because it would be a distraction there.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis

Could you please revert this whitewashing? Thanks--190.226.77.32 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Philoumenos (Hasapis) of Jacob's Well and personal attacks

Dear Gregory,

Please hold your horses and breathe in and out for a while before such personal attacks.

Also, please read WP:CON before any further one-sided major edits. I welcome you to the article's Talk page for further collaboration on NEW WP:RS that you intimated to discover. Thank you. Zezen (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

More to the point: do you have an unpayewalled version of www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.22.2.02. that you used? Zezen (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Zezen, have you tried Project MUSE and ProQuest? Both are available through many libraries and colleges. I couldn't get through the Jstor paywall either. I have to say that the previous state of this article was pretty disgraceful. Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

More Philoumenos

My addition of a 'see also' was based on my misunderstanding that the two monks were in the same area. Without that I agree, two orthodox monks murdered in distinct circumstances is a more tenuous relationship. You have to persuade Blackwell's etc that coverage of this event is 'blood-libel', not me. Pincrete (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Blackwells is, as I understand it, a tertiary source. We have a high-quality, peer-reviewed journal article to address the factual issues in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well deserved

		The Original Barnstar
		For your outstanding work on Philoumenos (Hasapis) of Jacob's Well Coretheapple (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to FIRST Robotics Competition. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• You might want to re-read the Washington Post article incident is sourced to.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• I did so about four minutes before I posted my message here on your talk page. Has it changed since then? MPS1992 (talk)

Hello, I'm TheGracefulSlick. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is in reference to your summary on this edit. I hope you realize I've written 279 articles (no deletions) and 13 GAs. I don't mean to gloat but to say I waste my time on deleting articles is an outright lie. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to have some articles deleted? I don't think that comment is uncivil and I read through it before you posted your comment here about your feeling about it. So when I read it, I didn't think it was uncivil. Anyway. Good job here on Wikipedia with all your great contributions! 65.32.209.26 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And there was me thinking that Americans didn't understand irony and didn't do patronising. How wrong one can be .  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hounding

E.M.Gregory, I presume that 'Hounding' is a reference to 'la defense', actually I went there indirectly as a result of your ANI linking me with the names of two other editors. Following what your interaction with them had been was legitimate on my part, since you sought to 'bundle' us although I hardly know either. 'Hounding' is defined by intent to disrupt, not by topic area. As I said previously, if you feel you have a case - you know where to go. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I responded here: [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ref used

Just an FYI, I think you copied the wrong URL here [3] - Galatz^Talk 17:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps that edit could be improved

Regarding this edit of yours. I think this edit could be improved in two ways. First of all, it seems out of place in the middle of that paragraph. Also, why does that sentence start with the word "however"? Debresser (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Naomi Klein

Please stop POV pushing and read WP:BLP and WP:IRS. Opinion columns are not reliable sources for facts, only for their authors' opinions, and using them as sources for a BLP indicates a serious misunderstanding of our policy.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sourcing a section to bluslinked commentators citing direct quotes from Klein is not POV-pushing. Here: is the edit: [4]. However, I will enhance the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)