User talk:Gimmetrow

Clickable images

Getting all the brainiacs on board ! Any ideas at User talk:Fvasconcellos#Clickable images? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jinnah

The quote on Jinnah's death describes the journeys taken due to his poor health and gives dates and locations from mohammed ali jinnah's sister. This would help a reader in terms of his death know the events in run up to his death and would indicate how bad his health was in his last days alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanj10 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-botify

Looks tricky: Talk:A Place With No Name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In these cases, split the afd template into individual events with {{oldafdfull}}. Gimmetrow 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gimme; you've told me that a gazillion times, but it doesn't seem to stick. Heads up: [1] Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA for Ozark Jubilee

I apologize for not letting you know yesterday on why the GA nomination failed for Ozark Jubilee, but here are reasons listed below:

[omitted]

Chris (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad someone looked at this. Gimmetrow 16:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Neville

Hi,

What was this in aid of? One column of large references is wasting whitespace, and the lede consists of a scant three sentences. Both were readily justifiable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged it with {{tone}}, which has nothing to do with a "short" lead, and one column of notes in the same readable font size as the rest of the text is at least as justifiable as a column in a smaller, less readable font size. Gimmetrow 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bot

Hi Gimmetrow. I finally finished the promotions/archive for this weekend. Please run the bot at your convenience. Thanks so much! Karanacs (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, can you run your bot over Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Supernatural (season 1)/archive1, which has been withdrawn from FLC and immediately submitted to FAC? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for catching my accidental deletion. I meant to only delete the Front Page Mag citation as not a reliable source, and not the Time reference. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alefbe

Left a message at his userapge saying his IP is still autoblocked. I tried to remove it but couldn't find it in the blocklist, so if you can find it that would be helpful.
By the way, I don't mind your unblocking him (indeed, the whole reason I reported it to ANI was for oversight, so he could be unblocked if others thought it appropriate), but in your messages to me at ANI I think you're missing the point: this user was deliberately undoing edits to scores of articles across the project when he knew it was controversial and had refused to participate in conversation (and, in fact, he did not go to start reverting those articles until he had "given up" at the main article). That's also quite inappropriate, and he shouldn't have a free ticket to do whatever he wants just because he believes he's above discussion. Heck, I wish I could change whatever I wanted across the entire project just by saying "I refuse to talk to you, that means I'm right!" rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working out the sequence of events. Even if your first set of edits were justifiable, it's not quite clear to me yet that undoing Alefbe's undos was a good idea. Gimmetrow 23:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And his reverting at 17 articles after explicitly refusing to contribute to the relevant discussion was a good idea? I'm sorry, but there is no need for us to baby disruptive editors who edit-war deliberately and express no interest in actually improving the article at hand. (This whole thing is Alefbe's way of trying to get back at me blocking him in the past—as you can see from his unwillingness to actually discuss the topic at hand, and single-minded interest in harping over how I "shouldn't have moved the page without consensus" a month ago, he clearly has no interest in the article itself and is only interested in winning a WP:BATTLE.) So far, he has been willing to discuss nothing but past non-issues (why I should or should not have BOLDly moved the page over a month ago) and has ignored the actual article. Honestly, who cares about a move that happened a month ago and violated no policies (keep in mind BRD)? I feel like I'm the only editor here who's tried to be constructive by talking about the article itself, and what should be done with it, rather than crying about things that happened a month ago. Now Alefbe has gone quiet since his block; I imagine that's because he's drafting some long report about why I am so abusive and should be desysopped. So much for actually talking about the article; for some people, the purpose of Wikipedia is not articles, but looking for drama. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gimmetrow. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JLo

Please explain these edit summaries. How is this vandalism (I resent the implication)? This format youre pushing does not conform to other discographies, particularly ones featured at WP:DISCOG. There's no reason why the table was changed from how it was months ago. Why would you prefer left-aligned columns? - eo (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said this form facilitates vandalism. WP:DISCOG, whatever weight it might have, says nothing about this. Gimmetrow 12:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the featured lists at WP:DISCOG and just about every other discography page in Wikipedia. You've yet to explain why your preferred version should stay. - eo (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because your version facilitates vandalism; that is, it makes it more difficult to undo. Gimmetrow 12:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to keep it incorrectly and sloppily formatted. Vandalism happens everywhere. - eo (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you have no reason to change a format which in your own words doesn't change content, given that other editors object. Do you even know what the issue is? Have you asked? Why do you continue making the same stylistic edit over objections? Gimmetrow 12:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one objecting. The table was changed without explanation on September 15. I do have a reason to change it (technically, change it BACK to a version which existed for quite a long time). Look at just about every other discography page in Wikipedia, look at the discographies that are featured lists and held up as examples at WP:DISCOG. Obviously there is a strong consensus about the set-up, formatting, layout and sources of these "good" lists, otherwise they wouldn't be given special attention. Do I really need to tell you that vandalism is inevitable no matter what? The answer is not to keep this one particular discography looking sloppy and different than all the others. - eo (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What version on or before September 15 do you think was better? Gimmetrow 17:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you two can both take a deep breath and explain your argument, I'll be happy to help you settle this. When I looked at both versions, the only thing that stood out to me was that the citations are very badly done. I'm curious as the arguments pro and con over the horizontal format vs. vertical (which is what I presume the dispute is here.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem was with the singles table. Why are the positions left-aligned? I changed this, tweaked the column header text size and combined the two tables ("lead" and "featured") into one. Why this format has suddenly been deemed one that "facilitates vandalism" is beyond me (and I have no idea what is meant by "more difficult to undo"; that doesn't explain much). - eo (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Ms Bollea

Well does one reply to this? I think one should. I don't envy someone who has to update Brooke Hogan's Wiki page with news, a tough love.

But, okay I hear you, however she does look 51 though!

Rightly you are correct and apologies all round. I shall lurk from now on only correcting the Queen's English and the odd shocking discography entries.

mind you my good outweighs my bad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.84.32.199 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.224.193 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risk

Why do you prefer the 1963 rules rather then the original 1959?--Work permit (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured stars and featured pictures

If word on the street is correct, you maintain the featured stars on FA and FL pages. There's a proposal to improve the display of featured pictures by adding a featured content star to caption boxes. The assistance of an experienced coder would be very helpful--basically a simple script to make sure the right display corresponds to featured material. A preliminary discussion has unanimous consensus with featured picture regulars; we're close to bringing this to the Village Pump. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Featured_picture_display: we'd love to get your input. Best regards, Durova³³¹ 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AbdullahKhaleeji7

Re your message: Eh, I get they are new, but six reverts is a bit much. I don't have a problem unblocking as long as they don't revert for an seventh time and go straight to the talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:AbdullahKhaleeji7_reported_by_User:Nableezy_.28Result:24hrs_.29

Unfortunatly your good faith unblock and second chance for this user didn't deter him/her from continuing disruption. I've had to block for 24hrs, FYI.--Hu12 (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Race the Sun

On October 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Race the Sun, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bencherlite ^Talk 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GO template

Thank you, Gimme; I was just staring at it, trying to decide if I was too tired to add the dates :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag Arbitration

Hello. I mentioned you and referenced your Wikipedia posts in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I therefore thought it appropriate to notify you of the fact.

The request is at Rjanag Arbitration.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmebot glitch

I noticed a glitch with Gimmebot at Talk:McDonald's Cycle Center. It does not update project templates that do not already have "class=" in them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Stone

Title of cited article: Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. Reports 6% Increase in Second Quarter Earnings--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki article attributed the 6% Q2 to co-branding with CS. Is that attribution in the article cited? 12:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

When I did the Google search, the summary of the article had the two sections highlighted. The CEO or CFO of Rocky Mountain was quoted that much of the profit they garnered in the quarter was generated as a result of the partnership with Cold Stone. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC and the prior RfA, and you discussed Rjanag's conduct with him.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC page is sure confusing. I'm not sure there is a consistent pattern of behaviour to discuss, and in any event I don't see it from the description on the RfC. The Turfan/Alefbe incident was more subtle than the presentations in the RfC and former Arb request seem to make it. Basically, it seemed to me that the third editor, whatever his motivations, was asking a legit content question, and that discussing the content question would have also provided time and opportunity to clarify any user conduct questions. Gimmetrow 13:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully its less confusing now, but the format itself is sure confusing (and another editor has deleted the explanatory hatnotes).

Just to explain the background, Draeco brought an AN/I, concerning behavior that surrounded two AfDs. The RfA followed. At the RfA, Rjanag wrote in his initial (since withdrawn) response, "all the [arbitration cases] I've seen are for...disputes that have gone on longer, span a larger part of the project". Similarly, Gatoclass pointed out that there had not been "evidence presented that [he] has demonstrated a pattern of misbehaviour outside the confines of this dispute." In response to those two points, the further misbehavior (including the Alefbe/Serezin matter), all from the past year, has been presented. It seems rather clear, at minimum, that in a content dispute admin blocking tools were used, and I believe Serezin has discussed this in a couple of places.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-bot promotion

Gimme, there was an after-the-bot promotion here that might need your review. (PS: RFC/U is a mess because uninvolved parties rarely review them to keep them on track.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a renewed appreciation for your bot, Gimmetrow! I do not make a great pseudo-bot. I (and a few nice talk page stalkers) have done the following:

Updated the FAC nomination to say promoted with the appropriate diff to when I promoted the article and removed it from the archive
Changed the articlehistory template to show that the FA nomination was successful, that the current status is now FA, and that class= on the wikiprojects is FA
Added the featured article template to the article
Removed the article name from the list of GAs

Can you think of anything else I need to do? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, you're braver and more industrious than I am! I know how hard after-bot work is :) I might have been afraid to tackle this work, and reinstated a new nom myself, with a note:) Good for you for making the effort ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to remove it from the list of GAs; that's part of the GA update script, not the FA processing script. Good you remembered the FA star, though. Gimmetrow 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gimme! Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV in articlehistory

Gimme, this showed up in ah errors. I don't know how to link to a DRV, since they aren't done on individual pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: User_talk:Marskell#FAR_and_far_away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Toni Preckwinkle for an example of DRV in AH. You can't link to the version of the article, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TTT. I fixed that one, Gimme. TTT, yes, you can link to the version of the article, see the article talk on List of scientists opposing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is different because it was a kept/no consensus that was DRVed. When a deleted one is DRVed there is no article in the articlespace history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! In that case, we can't link to an oldid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if a deleted article is restored through DRV, so is the history, and an oldid is possible. If a deleted article is not restored, then the talk page probably won't exist, let alone an AH template. Gimmetrow 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With my Toni Preckwinkle example, her article has been recreated as opposed to restored through DRV. The history is unavailable and probably irrelevant.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, darn, Gimme, I still don't know what I'm doing there. The DRV says "endorsed", but doens't endorse mean endorse the delete-- or does it mean endorse a keep? But the article is still there, so I may have entered the wrong thing on ah ??? I don't follow AFD at all, so I'm not sure what's going on here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Endorsed" can mean either a keep or a delete, however the AfD ended. It looks like in that one, the DRV was started by someone disputing the "keep" votes. Gimmetrow 19:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gimme. I'm finished at FAR and may have time now to archive some FACs, but promotions may need to wait 'til tomorrow. I'll see what I can get done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articlehistory query

Gimme, what is the current limit on articlehistory entries (I think it used to be 15)? See Talk:Ralph Bakshi; I am considering asking the FAC community for a FAC nominating restriction if issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi/archive9 continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 20 right now. I'm pretty sure there is an article with more than 15 already. 03:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimme ... I just needed to factor that into how many times he should be allowed to bring the article back with the same, unaddressed issues. I'll promote tomorrow. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anythig with more than 10 or so at WP:CHICAGO since both Hillary and Barack don't get anywhere near 15. Ralph Bakshi is unusual.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block 81.93.24.245

81.93.24.245 still is only anonymous, still only vandalizes, etc. You had blocked it (with exceptions) for 12 hours back in May; I think you need to block it from everything for at least six months. --Eldin raigmore (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolblock done, starting for 3 months. Gimmetrow 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; now I need to find out what a "schoolblock" is. I assume when I do I'll also see why you thought 3 months was more appropriate than 6 mos. --Eldin raigmore (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks, Gimme;[2] I'm going to have to watch more closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals

If you're still interested in the question, would you please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Cardinals. Lima (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lopez

You removed many of the "citation needed" tags. Was it that a citation was not necessary, or that the claims were covered by some neighboring citation? or something else? For example, the "Human Right Advocacy" section still has no citations, and you removed its tag. That section mentions specific dates, as well as "special recognition" that she has received. Surely claims like that can and should be cited.(?) Jwesley₇₈ 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to fact-bombing. Specifically about the "human rights advocacy" section, the section clearly refers to Amnesty International, which ought to be sufficient for verifiability. It's not as if you made any dispute about the facts. Gimmetrow 17:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So citations are not needed if the section mentions a well-known entity, e.g. Amnesty International? I'm not sure exactly what "fact-bombing" is, but I suppose it's when one requests too many citations for a BLP article. I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith about my edits instead of insulting me in the edit comments ("holy factbomb, batman"). -- Jwesley₇₈ 18:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want? Are you positively disputing the facts of the Amnesty International section? Or are you just seeking to add more citations to the article? What do you think is the appropriate course of action in each instance? Gimmetrow 18:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply saying that if there is a claim that "On February 14, 2007" she received an award, that it should be cited. And if an entire section lacks a single citation, then editors should probably be looking for a reference. Are you saying that only controversial claims require citation in a BLP? I read through the article looking for claims which might require citation. Perhaps I was wrong about a few. Jwesley₇₈ 18:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what exactly do you want to accomplish? If the goal is to add citations to improve a fairly well-developed article, adding a large number of cleanup tags may not be the best approach. It may be more constructive to add a few citations. Gimmetrow 19:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I should've taken more time to find citations, than simply marking "citation needed". And honestly, most of it was that I was offended that you accused me of "fact bombing" (in your response and in your edit's comment). I'll be more wary of marking "citation needed" in the future. Cheers -- Jwesley₇₈ 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Botification query

Hi, Gimme. I've noticed over past years that the list size at FAC tends to really grow over the holidays. On the one hand, we get more nominations because some people have free time during holidays, but on the other hand, we sometimes get less reviews and delayed responses because of vacation breaks. The list size is the longest it's been in months, yet many are close and can't be closed. Would you mind if we temporarily went back to a more frequent pr/ar schedule, to help manage the page size? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can always remove them from the FAC page and I'll try to get to them eventually. One of you hasn't been following the schedule for ages. Gimmetrow 18:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that me? :) I thought we had decided weekends could be either Friday, Saturday or Sunday to accomodate my "real life"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, someone else. By the way, another page move over at sperm whale. Also page moves at Kingdom Hearts (series) and Kingdom Hearts (video game) were beyond the script - one FA was moved to a new name to make room for another FA. At least Chola Dynasty got resolved for now. Gimmetrow 18:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Ray / EVOO

Your edits are admirable, but the distinction between coining EVOO and helping to popularize it are important. The OAD acknowledged that she helped to popularize the term, but no claim has been made that she coined it (and that claim would be incorrect). Her popularizing "EVOO" is mentioned in the sentence following the sentence of contention, and should satisfy the need for acknowledging her use of the term. But no mention of her "coining" EVOO can be correctly placed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.159.65 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Obi Ezeh

I can't find the articlehistory error there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it—an extra space in 'speedily deleted', apparently. Maralia (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness! Thank you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A routine Maralia check: User talk:SandyGeorgia#Just FYI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Ray

I've explained in detail on the talk page why information about her coining words is both incorrect, and is not supported by references. Could you please pay a little more attention to this? Thanks. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted Piano non troppo's continued vandalism of the Rachael Ray page. We are having the same problem with him blatantly vandalizing television station pages outside policy or consensus. He seems to be acting on his own and should be immediately reported and blocked. His behavior is so bad that people have emailed me (and I am retired) and I had to come out of retirement to fix the problems on the TV station side. So this isn't a one-area issue. - Neutralhomer (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to anyone who can explain what is going on in these other areas? I've seen Piano revert vandalism in other articles, which is a good thing, so I would tend to assume other edits are mistaken notions rather than bad intent. Gimmetrow 01:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WMAR-TV, WBAL-TV, KXLY-TV, KDFW-TV, KGO-TV, and WFAA-TV.

Each of these pages have had the information of where a reporter went after leaving the station removed. For example, Troppo removed the "Where Are They Now" information for Katie Couric from the WRC-TV page as "uncited, off-topic statement about non-Wiki notable". Katie Couric is easily citable and clearly notable since she has her own article.

Troppo claims he took this to "RfA, in ANI, in refused mediation, and in WP:TVS discussion" and while that was true, it was shot down in RfA, ANI, and WP:TVS and mediation (with me) just wasn't necessary. He cites no policy, no consensus, nothing, yet continues to vandalize and edit war to his "perfered version" that isn't within reason. - Neutralhomer (talk)

One also should note that Troppo is accusing me of being "abusive", while he is digging into my clearly out there past to somehow slam me with this and this post. I personally don't care, I can take the abuse from him, but it shows how he acts when he doesn't get his way. I am unsure what to do. I believe Troppo should be blocked, even if just for 24 hours, for multiple 3RR violations.

Side note, I am not sure why my time code is not appearing in my sig. My apologizes for that. - Neutralhomer (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of 04:28 (EST) on November 28, Troppo AGAIN vandalized the television station articles I listed above. This has turned into a clear edit war for him and he more-than-likely has broken 3RR and clearly doesn't care. Troppo should be blocked for 3RR violations and for vandalism, I ask that this be done immediately, if not soon. Thank you :) - Neutralhomer (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry discography

You are an admin, right? I'm having troubles in Katy Perry discography. An not-logged user (with the IP 201.209.253.17) is removing important informations in the article, such as Perry's debut album, singles certifications and references. He/she has been alarmed several times (by me and other editors) and he/she still removing those informations. I got tired of that - is there a way to ban this IP or just protect the page? Thanks so much. Decodet (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected. These discography pages are disasters. So much number switching or vandalism even when sources are attached. Anyway, the IP also seems to be changing "x" in certification multipliers (like 2x) to "×" (like 2×). That may be an OK change. Gimmetrow 03:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks so much! Decodet (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FACClosed

Gimme, I discovered last night that the bot is removing the {{FACClosed}} template (good), but leaving my sig hanging. This was happening because I was having to add my sig to a separate line, because of a noinclude in the template. I think this fixes that problem, but could you check whether that was the right way to correct the problem? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The script currently removes anything matching '\{\{F[AL]CClosed[^}]*}}.*' If your current fix doesn't work, I could modify this code to match line breaks, but then it would remove everything after the template. Alternately, you could add a signature parameter inside the template, similar to the way {{uw-block|sig=yes}} works, which would work easily so long as templates were not nested inside the {{FACClosed}}. 19:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if my current fix works on today's bot run? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

Hi Gimmetrow, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here [3]. I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 19:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged-from

Hi, I saw that you reverted the changes I'd made to {{merge-from}} because it was causing the old page to be transcluded, but I don't see how you were determining that. I momentarily switched the template to my version and looked at Talk:The_Scout_Association_of_Hong_Kong. One of the pages given in a merge-from template is Tai Tam Scout Centre, so I went to that page and clicked What links here, and the list was empty—no transclusions or anything else.

I hope I've fixed the problem by using #ifexist instead of exists, but since I don't know how you observed a problem to begin with, I can't check it. Can you please tell me where this transclusion was showing up and tell me if it's a problem now? Thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be gone. If you "edit" the entire page and not a section, a list of all transcluded pages and templates will appear at the bottom. Gimmetrow 08:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks for the info and for checking! —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Stephania Bell

What should current status be for Talk:Stephania Bell.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Madison De La Garza

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Madison De La Garza. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison De La Garza. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooneyites links

Although the links you removed from the Cooneyites article would likely be reliable enough for a links section (both are referenced on sites which have met RS consensus), a bigger concern is that neither site contains much information on the current followers of Edward Cooney. Perhaps there is some specific page on those sites which I've missed, and which deals specifically with the Cooneyite group. But if so, it would be best to link only to that page(s). Because I and others haven't had the time to flesh out this article, a convenience link to a site with more detail specifically on Cooney's followers would make a good addition until the article is more complete. It is just that I don't see the links which were added as filling that role. I'll note this to the editor who inserted the links. • Astynax ^talk 22:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GimmeBot bug

This shouldn't happen (creating an ArticleHistory when another exists). I'm guessing it's because the first ArticleHistory is inside a WikiProjectBannerShell. Don't know if it's common enough to be worth it to fix, but I thought I'd let you know. Shubinator (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for WP:GA addition to Gimmebot

Hi Gimmetrow, you may have been asked this before. I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Reconciling_list_of_good_articles_to_talk_page_project_designations.3F asking about talk page project templates GA class designation. Would it be a good idea to semi-automate a process whereby, if someone DGAs an article in ArticleHistory but forgets to change the project class templates, for a bot to change (probably remove) the GA class listing, similar to what Gimmebot does for featured articles? A bot could perhaps report differences between the article history designation and the project templates designations? In any case, it's a very useful bot, thanks for all the work on this, Tom B (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC pr/ar

Busy because of holidays, but will finish pr/ar by tonight. Merry Christmas, Gimme! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of xxxx (U.S.)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to these pages. Just thought I'd give a heads-up: Jaylon305 may be Billhits, an editor I've blocked a bunch of times for making those same types of edits to the Hot 100 lists and socking. He was (is?) hellbent on changing them all back and removing the images. I'll keep an eye on it; you may want to, also. Later! - eo (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]