User talk:Gimmetrow

I'm a little miffed that AfD ended so abruptly. I was writing a comment when it closed. I have some trouble with the idea of articles about what appear to be private people who have only been accused of crimes, and never convicted. Some of the details here are even about things of which he seems to have been acquittted. This article in two places asserts criminal activity of the subject without so much as an "alleged" - that should be a BLP problem. The sources are basically local, or with the NYT one, incidental, and the very incidental coverage of the subject in the one court document seems to be a bit misrepresented in the article, in my reading. (And that's going by the wikisource text uploaded by the author of the article...) Gimmetrow 01:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was getting at. If this guy is connected with a notable event, he can be mentioned in connection with it. If that connection is based on the court case cited in the article, I don't see a shred of evidence that it's notable, because there is only the primary source. The article appears to derive its notability from local crime-blotter coverage 26 years ago about why the guy got kicked off the police force. And, interestingly, those articles are available online, even though they're from 1981, apparently because critics of Scientology are watching this guy. Of course, those articles are up on the web because they're negative and someone wants to make that negative information as public as possible. There are major balance issues there, and thanks to my sending this article to AfD instead of just CSD G10-deleting it, it got jumped on by people, many of whom are going so far as to accuse me of bad faith. Mango juice^talk 01:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice, I think your explanation is quite faulty and unsatisfactory as a basis for an AfD. It looks to me that you are assuming bad faith in editors who don't agree with the church of scientology, based on your remarks above "Of course, those articles are up on the web because they're negative and someone wants to make that negative information as public as possible. There are major balance issues there," Whew! That sure smacks of WP:AGF violation. --Fahrenheit451 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References discussion on User talk:Java7837

Copying this from my reply to you on Java7837's talk page, re: your statement that there is no mandate for <references /> to be changed over to {{reflist}}:

I completely agree with you on that. Regardless of whether an article uses {{reflist}} or <references />, if the article has a longstanding history of using one or the other, it should not be changed without first being discussed on the article's talk page to obtain consensus. This discussion originated with I and several other editors being upset with what we regarded as the arbitrary exchange of {{reflist}} with <references /> in articles we care about; but that does not mean I advocate for an arbitrary exchange in the other direction. I apologize if I gave that impression. --Yksin 03:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Article Medal of Merit

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		I have awarded you this medal for your work in helping to reduce the backlog during the Good Article Candidates Backlog Elmination Drive. You reviewed five or more articles during the drive, which helped to contribute to the large decrease in the backlog. If you have the time, please continue to review articles to help make sure the backlog does not jump back up to what it was. Good job and happy editing! Nehrams2020 06:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Safe Place The article was speedy deleted, and the FAC was added to archives, so that might mess up the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A strange articlehistory situation at Talk:Arnold Schwarzenegger. On May 2nd articlehistory was vandalized, but it didn't show up in the error category until another incorrect edit today. So there could be other undetected errors out there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gimmetrow, how are you? Here's an undetected error in ArticleHistory; not sure if anything can be done about these kinds of errors. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember that date format; if I forget, will you bonk me over the head with another reminder? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note to Raul here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, from the work with Raul on FAs, can you see if Talk:Helium or Talk:Representative peer have any botification issues? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you

re: Orange Whip

The list I added of bands and other musical things that have named themselves after 'Orange Whip' was removed for being 'advertorial'. Now, this is patently wrong, because since I have nothing to do with any of them, I can't be advertising them, and 'advertorial' is actually a term used for when you hide an ad in something that looks like real content; nothing about the list and links to external sites, clearly marked as such would count.

Before I bring this up, though, I'm wondering if you agree that it was advertorial (I suspect not, since it was the addition of that and your Veronica Mars reference that gave it enough content to become a DYK?, but since I added it, I don't want to revert the edit; I can't make a judgment on it, since I obviously thought it was ok when I added it).

Thanks a lot for your help in this; this was my first DYK? submission, and I'm really happy that it went through with your assistance and suggestions. --Thespian 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Have you queried the editor who deleted it? " - nah. it wasn't that important, aside from the 'advertorial' label, since I had added it simply because I was trying to come up with content. The Studio, btw, is actually a fairly major place; I've found a lot of top-50 albums that were recorded there, that makes me feel an article on it would be of interest. Sometime. When I get everything else off my plate ;-) --Thespian 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On June 21, 2007, a fact from the article USS Sandpiper (AM-51), which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your work Gimmetrow.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More help needed

If you have been following along at WP:FLC#List_of_Chicago_Landmarks you know we need help creating stubs for the List to make it a more useful list and help it achieve WP:FLC status. Since I reminded people of this 7 stubs have been created. We need about 40 more to be safe although we may have a successful candidacy with the article as it stands.

Some of you may also be following the success of WP:CHICOTW at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/COTW/Good Articles. For the last 4 weeks no one has been very active. Thus, I am fearful that Historic Michigan Boulevard District, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Crown Fountain, & Art Institute of Chicago Building will all fail at WP:GAC when their turns come up. Also, Magnificent Mile did not experience the collaborative spirit. Our reputation as a successful collaboration is at stake. In addition to making stubs for the FLC we need your contribution to our collaborations. I am sorry to pull you away from whatever other wikipleasures you may be experiencing, but we need your help. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleHistory edit

Please see User talk:Kmarinas86.

Re: Lopez edit

Your recent edit to Jennifer Lopez moved a citation for parenthetical content outside parenthesis. If there were no parenthesis and just a comma, your move would be fine, but I think the ref mark for parenthetical content should be inside the parenthesis.[1] Gimmetrow 03:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when it says 'ref after punctuation', does the parenthesis count as punctuation? If it doesn't, I think it should be said in WP:REF. I'm obviously speaking with some bias, but I find it more aesthetically pleasing with the ref after the brackets and comma. Spellcast 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Camera

I'll grant you that the insignia of the Apostolic Camera is similar to that of the sede vacante, as demonstrated by the link that you provided in your edit summary. However, that hardly justifies presenting the sede vacante coat of arms as the insignia itself. That the CoA is a fair use image (or, at least, it would be if it were uploaded under more honest pretenses) means that we almost certainly shouldn't use it in that article. Please advise. Savidan 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested

Can you poke your head in over at User talk:Raul654#FAR_archives? Raul654 15:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed?

I'm sorry to bother you, but someone has in good faith tried to reopen Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare. It seems malformed; but in any case the article's editors do not wish to reapply for FAC yet. Since you did the closing work last time, could you possibly tidy up the situation for us? Many thanks. qp10qp 01:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged on the talk page, but I removed that. The very young editor who did this was trying to be kind because some editors were so deflated about the failure at FAC. The article has improved since FAC, but there is still a list of things to do, which will take time. We will probably go again in two or three weeks from now. Many thanks for your help.qp10qp 02:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does GimmeBot update…

Does GimmeBot update {{FA number}} and {{GA number}} automatically? Tcrow777 talk 21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot updates GA number. FA number is handled differently, usually by Raul. Gimmetrow 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "Raul654"? Tcrow777 talk 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmebot

Can you have gimmebot look at:

-Thanks. Raul654 01:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Islam, found an old facfailed which is already in archives, but needs to be botified on the talk page. Best regards (hope the summer is treating you well), SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what really needed to be done in any of these. There were some errors, mostly missing or wrong oldids, but nothing earth-shattering. Gimmetrow 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gimmetrow; I'm a little dizzy from being in archived FACs for a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this diff. Gimmebot changed the month of the closing date. Where the archives are concerned, it's important that Gimmebot use the month an articlew as removed from the FA list (June, in that case). In older FARCs, from what I have seen, they tended to remove first and then talk about it, rather than what we do now. Raul654 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's going to be a lot of that; on the older articles, the bot takes the last date entered, and often, that's in the wrong month. We could really go nuts trying to fix 2004 and early 2005, but I think we're in good shape from there forward. By going through Rick Block's list of unarchived FACs, I hope to get us a step closer to accurate history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I've reviewed that list through the Js, have resolved many, made categories of issues to be resolved, and have questions on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, no hurry (since I'm still archiving and making lists), but Rick Block and I need your opinion on how to handle withdrawn noms at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Not_archived#Withdrawn.2C_never_submitted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new facfailed on Star Wars at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2007 needs to be botified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Berlin, in June archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Talk:Christina Aguilera, new facfailed found in archives, has to be added to history. I'm getting dizzy SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another at Talk:Guns N' Roses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another at Talk:The Holocaust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one at Talk:Ronald Reagan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another: Talk:Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another (no hurry on any of these, just turning up in archival work): Talk:Eleanor Rigby SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Valley of the Kings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:World War II, found two more old facfaileds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pywiki bots are effectively blocked by the server lag at the moment. And in the future, I may not check these things all weekend, so get Raul to avoid Friday and weekend promotions. Gimmetrow 02:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I picked a heck of a day to do this work, with the slow server. Friday and weekends all summer, or indefinitely? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. Thanks for the botification above, Gimmetrow. OK, after more than a week in archives (between rebuilding the FA stats and sorting out Rick's list), I'm sick of it and want to move on :-)) I've taken Rick's list of more than 400 FAC files not listed in archives to a list of 18 that may have articlehistory issues. Are you interested in trying to sort those out and botifying them? I'm just exhausted of this work, and they could be simpler than I think. Unless you want to work on sorting them out, I may decide to ignore them, as I'm pretty worn out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the talk page associated with Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama (does the move also get the talk page)? We need a talk page there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come I couldn't find that button? (Never mind, don't answer that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does GimmeBot support {{oldscipeerreview}}, or should I prep that page manually? Talk:Introduction to general relativity SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC instructions

I tried to work on {{FAC-instructions}} to help avoid some of these issues, but it's still confusing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Botification heads up

Hey, hope you had a good weekend. There is a trainwreck at what used to be Raëlian Church, now split into two other articles, that will affect GA, FAC, GimmeBot and ArticleHistory, so I wanted to give you a heads up. I don't know if this will be sorted out before your return, but some info is here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]