User talk:GPHemsley

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

Paul McCartney FAC[edit]

The Paul McCartney article has now been thoroughly copyedited top-to-bottom by numerous editors including User:Lfstevens, who is a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If you can find the time in your busy schedule, please consider stopping by and taking a look, and hopefully, !voting. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Linguistics buff needed, if you're available[edit]

Hello, GP! I see you're a linguistics person. If you have a chance, could you take a look at the 7 languages with no articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous languages of California? Language buffs like me can add info from sites like Resource Network for Linguistic Diversity, but as I pitch in to help activate this Wikiproject, it's becoming clear that we need folks like you with academic background ... Djembayz (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikipedia Loves Libraries Atlanta event - November 17[edit]

Hello GPHemsley: I wanted to give you a reminder for the Wikipedia Loves Libraries event that is scheduled for November 17. If you had signed up as tentative, please visit the meetup page and confirm your participation. I look forward to seeing you there. Ganeshk (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Congressional districts/Boilerplate[edit]

Why did you change Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Congressional districts/Boilerplate without any discussion?—GoldRingChip 12:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I was being bold. I have spent the last few days working on articles related to Georgia's congressional districts. I started with Georgia's 6th congressional district, because that's where I happen to live. When I started with it, it looked like this. I drew inspiration from List of Presidents of the United States (among other articles), adding portraits for each representative and placing each discrete piece of metadata in a separate table cell. I also thought that it was important and useful to specify which Congresses each representative served during, what their district looked like at the time, and what sources the information came from. It didn't seem to me that any discussion had taken place regarding what the old boilerplate looked like, so I didn't see any problem in updating it based on my experience. I note that you have reverted my changes to the boilerplate and to Georgia's 13th congressional district and Georgia's 14th congressional district (actions which I obviously disagree with, in part because of the amount of time and effort I put in to make those edits), but you have not actually raised any specific objections about my proposed new format. What is it that you would like to happen here? Gordon P. Hemsley 17:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Being bold is great — sorry I got in the way. I hate to revert anything; I tried to bring those two articles to a compromise position and not to hue too closely to the boilerplate. The boilerplate is hardly the result of a consensus, it's just something I created years ago, and since then a lot of editors use it across the 500+ district articles. But that doesn't mean it has to be consistent; by all means let's make improvements and allow variations where they are warranted.
Here are my counterpoints to your formatting. Compare your version with my changes:
  1. There's no reason to have separate columns for the picture and the Rep. They fit nicely together in a single column, and when there is no picture (like in the 1800s) then the name takes up the entire space.
  2. There's no reason to have separate columns for the beginning & end of Tenure. Just a nice "– <br/>" will suffice and it saves on the excess horizontal space.
  3. I like (love!) having the historic maps included in the constituencies. I put the counties above the maps, but now I think I like it better the way you did it (map above counties).
  4. I merged the Congresses into a single row as long as they apply to a single constituency.
  5. Ditto for the electoral history.
  6. "Source" looks out of place as a column. I think the reference to the BioGuide is best in the Representative's article or possibly as an external link at the bottom of the page.
  7. Finally, I moved the Rep to the first column (left side) because the Rep is the person the list is about. Maybe that's not a great idea. What do you think?
Thanks for the dialogue.—GoldRingChip 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I am by no means suggesting that we should be inconsistent. My intent with updating the boilerplate was to help encourage consistency towards the new-and-improved (IMO) format. I think it's better to have a boilerplate created by a single bold person than to have no boilerplate at all, but if other people offer suggestions for improvement (preferably based on their experience with earlier incarnations), then that's even better, and that's what I was trying to do. And while I agree it's good to allow variations, I think we can (and should) set out basic parameters for variations to work within. (See, for example, how I handled the situation in Georgia's 6th congressional district around the time of the Civil War. First there was a long vacancy due to Georgia failing to claim its seats, and then there were further vacancies due to a failure to elect a representative once the seat was reclaimed. And then there are the situations regarding redistricting and other issues.)
With all that being said, let me address your specific points:
  • Regarding points (1) and (2): As I mentioned earlier, I think it's important to have separate table cells for separate pieces of metadata. The tenure end date is a separate piece of metadata from the tenure begin date, and the representative's portrait is a separate piece of metadata from the representative's name. Using separate cells also helps to maintain independent formatting and allow everything to remain perfectly centered, independent of other cells. In addition, I think it is good to encourage editors to search out portraits for representatives, as most of them will have had something done during their lifetime. (In the case of GA-06, there were a handful of representatives who had their portraits already on their personal pages; others I had to track down on Commons, where they were stored but not linked to by any pages. In all, there were only 3 representatives for whom I couldn't find an existing portrait, and I didn't search outside the Wikimediaverse; for those, I simply used File:Image of none.svg.)
  • Regarding point (3): I tried it both ways, and having the text below the map made it look squished. So I think we're in agreement on this point.
  • Regarding points (4) and (7): Although I admit that duplicating the information on a page like List of representatives from Georgia's 6th congressional district would be silly, given that the article is actually ostensibly about the district (not the representative), I think it would be better to have the first column be the Congress, as that is the primary index—indeed, the primary constant—for the rest of the data. Following that should be the dates of the tenure, as those are the next useful index, IMO. Given my propensity for one cell per piece of data, I don't think it's a good idea to merge Congress cells. I also think it would be bad to be inconsistent with such an action, which we would probably have to be in the case of, e.g., vacancies during a Congress. I could possibly be persuaded on this point, depending on where the other points fall, but I don't think that we gain more than we lose by merging the cells as opposed to keeping them distinct.
  • Regarding point (5): I view the electoral history as applying to the representative, not the district, so I would prefer to keep it the same number of cells as the representative. (I had previously had a separate cell for each Congress, but that turned out to be untenable when, e.g., the representative was elected to a Congress but resigned or died before it began.)
  • Regarding point (6): There are actually two separate issues here, one being the Sources column and one being the CongBio link. I'll address them separately:
    • Regarding the Source column: I am not the first to use a separate Source column in a table such as this, and I will admit that I thought it was strange when I first saw it, too. But if you don't have a separate Sources column, then you wind up having a bunch of inline citations that cloud up cells that should really only contain discrete pieces of data, or else you lack sources altogether (which is probably even worse).
    • Regarding the CongBio links: I think it is indeed important to include CongBio links on the representative's individual page, but that is in addition to, not instead of, on the district page, so I'll leave that aside. Having a single external link to the generic BioGuide homepage, which is what most of the district pages do now, doesn't do much good for the reader or verifier, as the need to search out each individual in the BioGuide will grow as the number of representatives of a district grows; I think it would be better to do that work once beforehand, allowing the reader/verifier to get directly to the information they want more quickly. Plus, the BioGuide entries themselves are often usefully detailed about almost all the information that is listed in the table (excepting district boundaries), so they are generally the primary source of the information used in each row of the table.
As I'm afraid you haven't convinced me that my changes were not for the better, I hope that my further explanations for them have helped to convince you. (See also the edit summaries for my many edits to the GA-06 article.) Regards. Gordon P. Hemsley 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled about the separate columns for each piece of metadata. It just makes the table look more rigid. Combining beginning & end dates into one column saves horizontal space and provides a better visual flow. You're right that it allows independent formatting, but it still remains perfectly centered with both dates together. I think we need to allow flexibility so the table doesn't become cumbersome. I've noticed other lists of elected folks also have extraneous information, such as birth, death, religion, and so forth. I think we both agree that it would be overkill here; if the reader wants to learn more, she can read the linked articles. I think of this table as trying to answer questions about the article: "what happened in this district?" That's why it's ok to have the Congress as the first column.—GoldRingChip 02:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think we're in agreement on what question the page is intended to answer—which is good, because it's fundamental to having a productive discussion. We're also mostly in agreement as to what information is needed to answer that question and, more importantly, what information is not. So it seems to me that we're really only disagreeing on the style to present it in. While I now understand your point of view and where you're coming from, I still hold my view just as steadfast. So perhaps it's time to move this discussion to a more general forum and get input from others. A good comparison would probably be these two snapshots: mine and yours. (Incidentally, though it hasn't come up in this discussion, I've come around to your position that redistricting should be represented alongside the representative, not as a fact about the district itself, since the district itself is redistricted every five years.)
The three main points of contest are:
  • Whether to present tenure in one or two cells
  • Whether to present the portrait in the same cell as the name or not
  • Whether to maintain a Sources column or not
Where do you think would be a good place to post a request for feedback on this issue? Gordon P. Hemsley 21:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Your new Doppelganger account[edit]

I registered User:Gordon P. Hemsley as a Doppelganger account for you, and also because that's the username that is in your signature, so it's a bit confusing for it to not be a redirect to your userpage. You don't need to maintain it or anything, it's job is just to sit there so that no one can register it and impersonate you. Also I responded to your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And also User:Gordon Hemsley. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi GPHemsley! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic 2013[edit]

You're invited. Please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 5. Ganeshk (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of television actors who died during production, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jim Davis, Andrew Campbell and John Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of television actors who died during production, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Retooling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2013[edit]

You're invited! Please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 7. To unsubscribe from these alerts, please remove your name from this page. Ganeshk (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Airport time zones[edit]

I finally got around to adding time zones, here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibility of some assistance?[edit]

Hi GPHemsley, I found your name on the list of active participants at the Linguistics Project. I hope you don't mind me dropping by to ask a question. I am working on the article, Lithuanian accentuation because it was on a list of articles requiring copyediting at GOCE. I have completed some of the copy edit but I don't know whether to try to expand the linguistic term abbreviations (glossing?) I'd be most grateful for any advice, kind regards, Myrtle G Myrtlegroggins (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I would indeed recommend expanding the abbreviations, as they don't appear to be used in a glossing context. (Glossing is a specific method of marking up the morphology of linguistic data, involving two lines which are aligned by word or other morpheme and which use glossing abbreviations to identify the grammatical category of function morphemes.) Gordon P. Hemsley 11:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, Gordon. I will do that. Have a great day, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Delaware Wikipedia Meetup[edit]

Because you were listed on Wikipedia:Meetup/University_of_Delaware, I'd like to invite you to this upcoming Meetup.

AH UDelLib (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikimediaDC events![edit]

The Great American Wiknic and other events in July[edit]

Wikinic 2013 washington d.c. 02.JPG

I am pleased to announce our fourth annual picnic, the Great American Wiknic, will take place at Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, July 13 from 1 to 5 PM (rain date: July 20). We will be hanging out by the statue of Dante Alighieri, a statue that was donated to the park in 1921 as a tribute to Italian Americans. Read more about the statue on Wikipedia. If you would like to sign up for the picnic, you can do so here. When signing up, say what you’re going to bring!

July will also feature the second annual Great American Wiknic in Frederick, Maryland. This year’s Frederick picnic will take place on Sunday, July 6 at Baker Park. Sign up here for the Frederick picnic.

What else is going on in July? We have the American Chemical Society Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, July 12, dedicated to notable chemists, and our monthly WikiSalon on Wednesday, July 16.

We hope to see you at our upcoming events!


James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon![edit]

Company F, 3rd Massachusetts Heavy Artillery, in Fort Stevens, Washington DC (ca. 1861).jpg


Sorry for the last minute update, but our friends at the DC Historical Society have scheduled a Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War battle fought in the District. The event will last from noon to 2 PM on Wednesday, July 30. Hope you can make it!


James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Anthology cover collage.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Anthology cover collage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Dinkytown talk 03:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet[edit]

Come one and come all. To a presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history.

Picture your self leading the masses to improve Wikimedia one article at a time.
  • Show the Internet who is the better editor.
  • Be the creator of culture that you know you are.
  • Spread the knowledge of noteworthy people who no one but you cares about.
  • Lead the charge to a better Wikipedia --- eventually.

Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet[edit]

See you at the Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street, Laurel, MD on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 7:00 PM EST. See for more information. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites revolutionaries, free thinkers, and other sundry editors to a DC WikiSalon[edit]

The WikiSalon is a special meetup usually held during the first and third full weeks of every month, from 7 PM to 9 PM. It's an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss Wikimedia wikis and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own.

If you're coming by Metro, the closest station is Dupont Circle (on the Red Line). If you're driving, a lot of parking opens up downtown after 6:30 PM, so finding a parking space (even a free one) should be easy. Once you've found the building, go to Cove on the second floor. We will be in the conference room.

When: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

Where: The Cove, Dupont Circle, 1730 Connecticut Avenue NW, 2nd floor, 20009, DC

For more information, see

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC's Wonderful meetups[edit]

Wikimedia DC's Upcoming meetups

  • Thursday, September 11: “Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet, One Article at a Time!”
    A presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history. Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street in Laurel, MD. 7 PM.
  • Wednesday, September 17: WikiSalon
    Come for the pizza, stay for the conversation. 7 PM – 9 PM
  • Saturday, September 20: September Meetup
    Get dinner and drinks with fellow Wikipedians! 6 PM
  • Sunday, September 21: Laurel History Edit-a-Thon
    Local history for Wikipedia! 10:15 AM – 4 PM
  • Saturday, September 27 – Sunday, September 28: Please RSVP for the Open Government WikiHack at Eventbrite by clicking on the link. The National Archives and Records Administration and Wikimedia DC are teaming up to come up with solutions that help integrate government data into Wikipedia. 10:30 AM – 5 PM each day

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The wonderful annual meeting! And more![edit]

Our Archives.jpg

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

I am excited to announce our upcoming Annual Meeting at the National Archives! We'll have free lunch, an introduction by Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, and a discussion featuring Ed Summers, the creator of CongressEdits. Join your fellow DC-area Wikipedians on Saturday, October 18 from 12 to 4:30 PM. RSVP today!

Also coming up we have the Human Origins edit-a-thon on October 17 and the WikiSalon on October 22. Hope to see you at our upcoming events!


James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

End-of-the-year meetups[edit]


You're invited to the end-of-the-year meetup at Busboys and Poets on Sunday, December 14 at 6 PM. There is Wi-Fi, so bring your computer if you want!

You are also invited to our WikiSalon on Thursday, December 18 at 7 PM.

Hope to see you at our upcoming events!


James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Language-population update project[edit]

Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.

A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.

Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).

Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.

Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the {{sigfig}} template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)

Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.

If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.

The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.

Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!

kwami (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking part in the Community Health learning campaign![edit]

Users dreaming talking and editing

Hi GPHemsley,
I wanted to share back with you the drawing you contributed to the community health mural we hosted in Mexico City. Thanks for taking part! The campaign is going on until Sunday this weekend, and users are still very active answering some questions related to community health. We would love to see your views there, as well!
Happy editing! María (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Archive navigation[edit]

Template:Archive navigation has been nominated for merging with Template:Talk archive navigation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking part in the Community Health learning campaign![edit]

Community Health learning campaign - Analysis Report of Community Responses
Thank you!

apologies for writing in English, if this is not your first language.
I want to thank you once more for engaging in conversation on the Community Health learning campaign. It took us a while, but we can finally announce the winner of the prize, as well as share the outcomes of this conversation.

You might also be interested in taking part in the 2015 Harassment consultation. This is the first of several planned consultations on this topic, intended to provide a place to discuss ideas, concerns, proposals and possible solutions regarding Wikimedia communities’ harassment-related challenges.

This conversation would not have been the same without you. If you have more ideas, or follow up comments on the findings of the campaign, don't hesitate to leave me a message my talk page.

Have a great day,


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)