User talk:GT/Archive 1

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

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]


Hello, GT/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ...Scott5114 20:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been using Wikipedia since 2002. GT 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

St. Louis Post-Dispatch[edit]

I've moved the article from Saint Louis Post-Dispatch to St. Louis Post-Dispatch, as this seems to be the title most commonly used. Ral315 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks[edit]

GT/Archive 1, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path.

--- joturner 02:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious symbols.png

Current Events WikiProject[edit]

Given your recent comments on ordering current events archive articles, I thought you might be interested in joining the newly created Current events WikiProject. I'm trying to get a group of people working on the current events section which, although it is linked from every page on Wikipedia, is in need of some help. I hope you join and help jumpstart this new initiative. joturner 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Good idea -- I'm in. GT 06:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your current project[edit]

I came along your userpage and I think having recent history of the article at the side is a really good idea. So I encourage you in your quest :-) (maybe just put it under interwiki links). --Tone 19:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rock on, thanks for the support and if by some strange overcoming of procrastination I should happen to create that plugin I'll let you know. GT 19:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agnostic atheism / weak atheism[edit]

FWIW, weak atheism is the simple absence of belief in gods. Agnostic atheism is atheism combined with the belief that the question of the existence of gods can't be answered. The two positions are different, though related. Vashti 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So under those definitions when is an agnostic not an agnostic atheist? GT 07:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It's possible to be an agnostic theist - one who believes in god(s), but acknowledges that there is no objective proof. Vashti 17:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The dispute at Talk:St. Louis, Missouri[edit]

I wanted to appeal to you as an obviously vetern editor. Please re-read this quote from your comments on the Talk page.

Your blatant and possibly willful twisting of the facts and ignorance of policy and etiquette (basically saying screw NPOV and attempting to eject newcomers from the discussion) is making this really hard for me to assume good faith

The fact the you acknowledge the editor's ignorance of policy and ettiquette is quite an obvious reason to educate the person rather than accusing them of "basically saying screw NPOV and attempting to eject newcomers from the discussion." I think the fact that you also accuse them of "willful twisting of the facts" pretty much acknowlegdes you have already dispensed with good faith. Please ease up on this guy and help him learn how WP works rather throwing buzzwords at him and assuming he will follow the links. You must see the way you approached this whole situation from the beginning is in a large part responsible for the animosity now entrenched in the disscussion. If you do not feel you can explain things to him in the proper manner, at least do not further antagonize him. I simply see a great deal of misunderstanding and frustration on his part. I would like to have this situation end with everyone understanding the process they were involved and why the decision was made. That is more important to me than whether the article contains a quote or not. I really think you should look over your contributions to this situation and think about how you could have approached this differently from your very first edit. Ask yourself "What could have been done so the quote would have been removed and the newbie could have felt as if he had contributed positivly and learned a great deal about how WP works?" I am not someone who usually confronts other editors about their conduct, but I think you have been acting in particular poor form towards a newbie.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There are probably things I could have done or said differently along the way but that particular quote notwithstanding, I believe I have been quite polite and respectful given the way I've been treated and I do not feel personally responsible for the difficulties we've had in that page. Mark is an unusually stubborn and determined "newbie" and as I am his chief opposition he is rejecting everything I say, including my calm attempts to educate him as to how his statements and views are in violation of the Wikipedia spirit and its policy. I have tried many times to politely indicate to him why I was opposing him -- not out of rejecting his sentiments or views but out of a desire to maintain neutrality and not clutter the page with things that don't deserve to be there.

This whole thing was made out to be a one-dimensional keep or delete battle and when everyone piled on me instead of giving some of their attention to him it gave Mark the impression that he had full "consensus" support behind him and removed any credibility I had in his mind as a person more familiar than he in Wikipedia policy and practice. Comments of a similar nature to the one you just made on that page would have been a big help earlier and more effort could have been made by his allies to say "Hold on Mark, even though I agree with having the quote, we can't do it for those reasons ..." — GT 05:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Rosario Isasi[edit]

Should we nominate for deletion Rosario Isasi as per Talk:Rosario_Isasi?

Tony 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA![edit]

Thanks for the vote in my RfA! I appreciated your consideration and comments about the nomination, and I'm glad you made them. It did not gain consensus, still I'm happy to have accepted it. - Amgine 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve Smith[edit]

Sorry about reverting your edits but i wasn't aware of the discussion that had taken place. I just looked at what the changes were and saw the horrible new title and reverted it back. I have now contributed to the discussion in favour of status quo. Do you really think that the article needs to be changed? With the disambig page as informative as it is, the title isn't so important. Masterhatch 02:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Steve Smith did play for the Peterborough Petes, albeit only nine games in total, including the Memorial Cup. [1]. Flibirigit 05:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]


Hi GT/Archive 1,

Thank you for your vote in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote.


Srikeit(talk ¦ ) 10:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Low quality edits by user with poor English skills case notes[edit]

I'm moving this here to get my remarks out of what's supposedly a closed case.

You asked about Akidd dublin's username, and if he learned his argumentative style here or elsewhere. He has started another username in order to leave behind the baggage of the many negative comments and actions he has received. Though he does seem to still be using his old "abandoned" account, even to edit his new user pages. Odd. But not out of character. I believe from other forums he has participated in (outside of Wikipedia) that he brought these traits with him here. He has a LONG history of arguing vigorously about his own lack of language skills. Bizarrely, he actually seems to believe that he is qualified to make these criticisms in other. He even went so far as to ask that the page Deschutes River (a river in Oregon I know well) be moved to "Chutes River", since "Des" just means "the". This is classic "dictionary thinking", whereby he has no grasp of how syntax works or what the difference between a phrase and a proper noun is. Unteachable at this point, I think. Fnarf999 17:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

This is not copyright paranoia, the images are not illustrating the article and are therefore not usuable as fair use. See WP:FU. ed g2stalk 22:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The images are serving only a decorative purpose, they are not adding anything to the article other than providing a visual identifier for some of the discussed teams. For fair use an image must add significantly to an article. ed g2stalk 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information."
The names of the teams provides the information that the teams are important to the article.
"The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."
As discussed above.
ed g2stalk 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright abuses[edit]

Hello, this message is in response to the deletion of material on this wikipage. Tens of thousands of images have been deleted by a small handful of wikipedians.

Would you be interested in joining a group on wikipedia which counters the heavy handed tactics of the copyright police. I can't fight them on my own. User talk:Ed g2s has began deleting fair use image on every person's user page and on several other pages, inspired by WP:FUC which was written by another paternal copyright policeman with absolutly no legal training and little understanding of copyright law.

I stared this page, with this purpose: User:Travb/Misguided and heavy handed tactics of some admins regarding copyright

Please tell others about this project. The paternal copyright police are well organized and are intoxicated with their own limited power here on wikipedia. Only a large number of wikipedians will stop this abuse. Travb 13:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


What's there to be suspicious about? Me and Funnybunny are friends in real life, that's all. The Gerg 16:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm ForestH2. I'm not logged in though. When scrolling down, I don't see my comments, I don't see my comments, so I think I haven't voted. I don't remember a lot of stuff, so I don't remember who I voted for on RFA's. If your not opposing you don't have to comment right? Actully....Everyone who on there currently, I feel would make a great admin. Contact me back on my talk page later. ForestH2

Furthermore please erase my comments on which I have voted on RFA's twice. ForestH2


I am not voting support on RFA's just to be silly. I am actully taking some time to think about the user, GT. I just don't put comments in and I do oppose users. ForestH2 (discuss | contribs)

Finishing your response- I look at there edits with Mathbot's Tool, there Contributions, there use of different things, before commenting. I'm not excatly sure why in the world were having this conversation as it is clear I oppose users sometimes and I check different categories before supporting a user though I hardly comment. You don't have to comment if you support. Best Regards, ForestH2 (discuss | contribs)

And when a new RFA pops up...I don't just decide to support. That's silliness and only very goofy Wikipedians would do that. ForestH2 (discuss | contribs)

Nothing working with actully signing my name correctly. See my talk page and the conversation I had with GHE and his talk page. ForestH2 (discuss | contribs)
Yes. This is signing with 4 tidles. No I will not do it as I get: 5 June (UTC) 2006 ForestH2 22:44
Can you copy and paste what it says in your setting box in your preferences? --Rory096 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)ForestH2

Yes, I can Rory. Just a second. Let me reply to GT. Current in My Nickname box is nothing. Raw Signature is not checked. For proof let me show you in my next message. ForestH2

My Preferences[edit]

Username: ForestH2 E-mail (optional)* Nickname:

Raw signature (no auto link; don't use templates or external links in this) Language: Change password

This is my preferences without my ID. ForestH2
Hmm, and when you type "~~~~," what does it generate? --Rory096 02:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's are the possible ways:


  • ForestH2 22:44 6 June 2006 (UTC)ForestH2
Hmmm....using {{timestamp}} my name comes out perfectly. I think I'll sign like this: [[User:ForestH2|ForestH2]] {{timestamp}}. ForestH2


Oops… yes, I was reading the deal with his signature and accidentally posted it on yours. Thanks for the heads-up. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:10thAndPeachtree.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:10thAndPeachtree.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Fair use rationale for Image:Jonesthanksgiving.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jonesthanksgiving.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1991 NHL Dispersal Draft[edit]

OK, I added a reference to the Usenet post I found which listed the draftees. There may be a better source out there, but that's the one I used. I would suggest the article be renamed 1991 NHL Expansion and Dispersal Drafts, as the two are interlinked so much. 1991 NHL Dispersal Draft and 1991 NHL Expansion Draft could both be redirect pages. We could work together on rewriting it thusly, if you're in. It would be great to create a model for Expansion Draft pages, so pages for the 1992, 1998, 1999, and 2000 drafts could be created as well. --Skudrafan1 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, page reinvented as 1991 NHL Dispersal and Expansion Drafts --Skudrafan1 23:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Surprised it made it here?[edit]

Are you kidding? That's exactly the type of page that I want added to the list :). NoSeptember 08:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fritzbot and Image:Google(small).png[edit]

Sorry about that. The bot's working of the list at Special:Unusedimages (so I can't really influence the list), but images that are tagged with {{not orphan}} won't be touched by the bot. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments to my talk page[edit]

Well apparently, I was wrong about you too. I aploigize for losing control like that. The Gerg 19:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Pound Scots[edit]

Please note that Scottish banknotes are denominated in Pounds Sterling, not Pounds Scots (which haven't existed since 1707) - this is why I've taken your picture of an RBS £1 note off the article. -- Arwel (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)