User talk:Gabriel syme/Archive 1
Thanks for your work and a favor to ask.
[edit]I've noticed you've cleaned up a few pages of copy issues and unhelpful edits and I wanted to thank you for this. It also go me thinking, as I have an article Jefferson Davis Park, Washington that I've been working to improve and was wondering if you might be able to take a quick look at it. I believe the text needs improving to better convey the story in an encyclopedic style and would be grateful for a fresh set of eyes. Thanks again for the work you've done. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@C. W. Gilmore:Hey thanks for the kind words. I'll take a look at the article in the next day or two, it's not one I would typically run into in the wikiholes I fall into. Also, you might want to check out this essay, one of the most helpful I've found. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks so much and the fact that this is not your type of article is just why I asked as most people interested in the subject have an axe to grind, or at least, strong opinions. I'm hoping to improve the readability of the article while staying true to the sources and staying as neutral as possible. The most detailed accounts come from the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) website, but with very biased and loaded language, almost as bad is the Portland Mercury's reporting on Rose City Antifa's vandalism of the park. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- The edits that were being made to the article did not match the information in the referenced source.
"Another granite marker proclaiming the road's designation as the Jefferson Davis Highway was erected at the time in Vancouver, Wash., at the highway's southern terminus. It was quietly removed by city officials four years ago and now rests in a cemetery shed there, but publicity over the bill has brought its mothballing to light and stirred a contentious debate there about whether it should be restored."[1]
- There is nothing about "an unelected official" or "surreptitiously" in the reference, so there should be no issue with removing this un-sourced and misleading addition to the page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- @C. W. Gilmore:, while that may very well be true, it doesn't change the fact that you violated 3RR. I've done my best to help steer you in the right direction but it seems to be wasted effort at this point. To echo the comments of another user: You are one of the most arrogant and disruptive editors I've seen here. I doubt you will be with us much longer. Gabriel syme (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
MOS
[edit]Please note that the Manual of Style is a guideline and is not policy. It is not mandatory, and when it's best to break MoS, then MoS should be broken. The edits you're making which salishly follow MoS are not improvements. Fruther, the Arbitration Committee has noted several times that upholding MoS is not an acceptable excuse to edit war, so if you disagree with the status quo of the article (which I have returned to), please take your comments to the article talk page, per WP:BRD and do not [[WP:EW}edit war]]. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken:I appreciate the fact that the MOS is not policy or mandatory, but I have been noticing alot of links in quotations that are unnecessary, have already been linked in the article, or just plain ugly to read. Looking at linkage of Weishaupt in that quote, I notice that he isn't linked anywhere else on the page, so that's helpful, and I have to admit having that one linkage in the block quote doesn't clutter the quotation like I've seen in other places. I had gotten into a locked-in sort of headspace where it comes to the links in quotations, thanks for taking the time to comment. Gabriel syme (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, thank you for considering what I wrote and looking through the article. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Links and Pandora
[edit]I'm here because I noticed your helpdesk question (because I asked something just below), and took a look at your edits. So a couple of quick things;
1. BMK's comments above make sense; I've no opinion on the specific issue you seem to be involved with there. I despise overlinking, and WP:BOLD is a great idea, as long as discussion is welcome (WP:BRD).
2. I see you have been pointed to MOS about over-linking, so I guess you already saw the relevant section WP:OVERLINKING, but you may also find the quick checklist here useful; WP:LINKDD
3. (Totally unrelated, and quite trivial) I think your user page should link to Pandora's box instead of the redirect Pandora's Box
This very comment is probably part of that box's content. Enjoy. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Not my OR
[edit]The Times writer was mistaken, and I have added two other sources that correctly identified the flags. I could have added more but too many references break up the flow of the page. Let me know if you would like more sources, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @C. W. Gilmore: It appears she was, although I had to fix something with the ref going to a 404 on the second one. I'd still like to remind you that adding info derived from observing images in news articles is OR: [[2]]. Good luck! Gabriel syme (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
image refered below
|
|---|
 |
- It was not my observation, but the consensus of reporters and as stated on the SCV webpage. It is also why I have not added this image, since I've not found a good reporter description and am concerned with using the park's webpage as a single source. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @C. W. Gilmore: Yeah, I'm pretty sure the website of owners isn't a good source. As for 'consensus of reporters', I'm not sure what that even means. All I want to see is sources accurately reflecting the information in our articles. They do now, so that's all good. I hope you don't mind me collapsing the image, not something I want to look at every time I come to my talk page, but good luck finding reporting on it. Gabriel syme (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't blame you for that and you could delete it if you like. Also wanted you to know that I deleted the details about the flags List of Confederate monuments and memorials per the Talk Page discussion that 'minimal details' only are to be given on this page because of this List's size and as it continues to grow even larger by the week. I added it to the parks page so it is still available, but this from the Talking Page discussion over the past two months. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @C. W. Gilmore: Yeah, I'm pretty sure the website of owners isn't a good source. As for 'consensus of reporters', I'm not sure what that even means. All I want to see is sources accurately reflecting the information in our articles. They do now, so that's all good. I hope you don't mind me collapsing the image, not something I want to look at every time I come to my talk page, but good luck finding reporting on it. Gabriel syme (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- It was not my observation, but the consensus of reporters and as stated on the SCV webpage. It is also why I have not added this image, since I've not found a good reporter description and am concerned with using the park's webpage as a single source. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
flags
[edit]I did note one early image (2008?) of the part from the groups webpage that had the current USA flag to the left and the (3rd) Confederate States flag to the right. So the flags have not always been as we see them today. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)