User talk:Abigailgem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Abigailgem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Eli Falk 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A Fairly Honourable Defeat[edit]

The article you wrote, A Fairly Honourable Defeat, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related articles. A stub marker or other template doesn't count - please put in an actual category in the article.Eli Falk 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. AFHD now has three categories. I am looking around to find what to do about putting on the article a picture of the cover of the book. I may yet ask you about this, though I will explore a bit first to see if I can find out myselfAbigailgem 14:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Amina Araf[edit]

Thanks for taking on the edits. They can still be removed if that's the best decision. This hoax was a big stunt, but just because it was fake doesn't mean the content of the hoax was not part of the story. It's already been reported on extensively and the published words already had some effect. In short, just because the event turned out to a dud doesn't mean the article has to follow suit. What is most important is that the phrasing matches reality. So we have to make clear to distinguish between the character and the fake person, and the true author (Tom MacMaster) and his creation. I think we can do this with some clever phrasing. There's a good talk page post linking to similar internet hoax articles. I'm going to check them out. See what you think. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Word choice

Hi, I saw your edits with 'claimed' and 'purportedly'. Although used commonly in scholarly writing, we try and avoid them since they don't clearly state what happened and who said it and what they meant. We try and spell it out to make sure it's clear Wikipedia isn't doubting them. This is explained in our guideline, WP:Words to avoid. Please take a look at it and consider rephrasing your edits. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 13:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is one of the exceptions to the guideline. In this case, after the apology from MacMaster, we know that Amina does not exist, and that her cousin does not exist either. There was a claim on the blog that the blogger had been abducted. I agree that the words "claim" or "purport" indicate that the claim is false, but then it was. Before, the word "reported" was used, rather than "claimed", which could indicate some doubt where there is none. So I think "claimed" is more accurate. Before, it read "a person who introduced herself as Amina's cousin", where if Froelicher's denials are to be believed, the author of that post was almost certainly male. So I think in this case "purported" is more accurate. I would not revert if you deleted my edits, but I prefer the wording I used. WP:ALLEGED is I think more relevant where there is still some dispute. Here we know that there was a hoax, that was the heading for the blog last time I looked. I would not write "falsely claimed" because that becomes judgmental, possibly not NPOV, but I think "claimed" where there is a falsehood is accurate. Abigailgem (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand what you meant--the Gay Girl in Damascus blog has been changed and you want to link to an archived copy of it or a blog describing how it has changed. Also, you think someone is now impersonating MacMaster and we should make that known. Simply, we use the sources we have and the sources that are published. If you can find a news article or reliable blog (there are few) which covers this twist we could include it. Otherwise it's generally considered original research. We cover the historical record of what the blog contained fairly well already, and it is covered in the many sources at the article. As for its current state, we could possibly use the blog itself as a source, but it would have to be very limited, since we don't have a secondary perspective on the changes to the blog. As for a MacMaster impersonator, we definitely need a source. We won't add or address speculation without one. I'll take a look at the blog and the article and see what options I can think of. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 00:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the impersonation is a serious suggestion. However, at the moment we have a link to the blog, but no indication that it has been changed. I do not think the link to the blog should be left without making this clear. Could an older version be stored on Wikipedia? Abigailgem (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm still not sure exactly what you mean about the blog. It still has all of the old posts up until June 6. On June 13 there is the 'apology' post. The only post that changed is he took down the 'she was abducted' post between June 6 and 13. Is that what you mean? You want to provide a link to that post? Even though the post has been taken down, we still report about it extensively. There's no doubt left to the reader that the post happened. I suppose we could mention that it was removed and link to an archived version of we can find it... Ocaasi t | c 10:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Anytime :) - I think that if this guy is MacMaster, he needs to make it clear "I am MacMaster" for all of his Ips/accounts, and also to refrain from making legal threats. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  Chzz  ►  11:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Alex Salmond Page[edit]

Hi, I have just added a section about word choice to the Alex Salmond Talk page. From a quick glance down the page history I see you have contributed to the page in the recent past. The contribution concerns a matter of word choice but I do not think I am able to make the change due to the semi-protect status afforded to the page. I wonder if you could take a look or mabye even make the change yourself. Thanks EarlBelhaven (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not object to the edit, but to me "term" means a fixed term, and I do not think it is an improvement. "Period" works even less well. I will think on it. Abigailgem (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Razan Ghazzawi concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Razan Ghazzawi, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Razan Ghazzawi[edit]

Hello Abigailgem. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Razan Ghazzawi.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Razan Ghazzawi}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I consider that Premises registration should be a separate article from Premises. While it may be useful to have an article to define the word "premises", there is a vast area of law applicable to premises, already dealt with under Tort, Land law etc. So the Premises article should not be expanded to describe these things, but refer to the other articles.

It may be that Premises registration is a term of art for US provisions, which could be dealt with under a more international heading: there is also an article on Animal By-Products Regulations which applies to disposal of carcasses in the UK.

Can I make Premises registration a separate article?

How would I do that? Abigailgem (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't have anything fancy for that, and the manual way to do it is rather cumbersome. What you can do best at the moment, is expand the section on Premises, until there is enough there to warrant a stand alone article. Once that is there, we'll get to copying it over. Because it is all manual, there is a lot of work in getting the attribution chain unbroken (any article needs to have a complete history of who did what for our license), so that's a bit of a PITA. It might be a good idea to pop in to the IRC help channel, and we can help you out interactively, rather than through talk page messages, which is a bit cumbersome. If you have any more questions, just ask, or, if I failt o keep an eye on it, just re-enable the help me template. Below, I'm going to drop a boilerplate invitation for the teahouse, which is also a good venue to ask any questions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse logo
Hello! Abigailgem, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!


Regarding this, you were right, and I apologize. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


There is a Wikipedia world, of Deletionists and Inclusionists, of essays and policies and pillars and getting things done according to the wikipedia way, which includes non-discrimination and ways of building respect and co-operation such as Assume Good Faith, and I really do not want to get into it. Blogging is my way of conversing over the internet. "Simpering and whining"- well, yes, actually, here now, too- Ach. Go well. Abigailgem (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


I can not believe that you made this edit. I am sure that you think you were just tidying up an article, and you didn't intend to be destructive. However, in the process you removed a huge amount of useful information, as well as citations and links, which was destructive. If you had cut and pasted it to another article, I would understand. However, you just cut it out. I hope that you did not intend to remove legal citations from the whole website. To fix this problem, I am going to cut and paste eveything you removed and place it into the Duty of care. Please don't remove material, especially properly cited information, without putting it somewhere. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

On further thought, I created another article at Premises liability, which I had created in 2007 as a redirect. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You see I think the information was elsewhere, eg under Land Law, though not in the same order. I don't think Premises deserves a separate article, except to show the etymology of the word. The English term is Occupiers' liability for what you call "Premises liability". So your article is a US article, with confused references to other common law jurisdictions. I think it would be better as a US law article, with references to articles on the law of other jurisdictions. I doubt "Premises liability" has ever been a term of art in England. If you want an article covering the law worldwide, "liability of occupiers of premises" would be a better title. I rarely rewrite to such an extent. Abigailgem (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)