User talk:Gap9551

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for your help in combating vandalism on Lilly King! It was an experience I will not soon forget (including watching the race). Lepricavark (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, sport is emotion I suppose. Thank you for your efforts too in making sure a much-visited article remained of acceptable quality. I see you recently joined, and I'm happy you did. Gap9551 (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg I think we need some way to cool down after dealing with all that vandalism on Chad le Clos. —MRD2014 T C 02:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I even had to miss some of the semifinals because of those hordes of vandals. Gap9551 (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. —MRD2014 T C 02:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I was sort of watching it over the top of my laptop, but I didn't really see most of what was going on. Lepricavark (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I hope the two of you enjoyed it. Impressive that you even found time to hand out that many warnings Lepricavark. Gap9551 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope I don't get in trouble for going straight to 'only warnings' on most of them, but I was hoping to slow some of them down. Lepricavark (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Not at all under these circumstances, Lepricavark, many were severe BLP violations. WP:UWLEVELS says in cases of obvious bad faith vandalism, it may be appropriate to use a level 3 warning in the first instance. Level 4 is ok too under exceptional circumstances, I think. Whether an admin will actually block them after a second violation is at their discretion. But we don't want this. Gap9551 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Good to know. At least we did our part to keep it under control. Lepricavark (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Matt Grevers[edit]

Matt Grevers is now retired from competitive swimming carrer. 2402:6B00:3468:3A00:7CDB:A0C0:AFA2:756D (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, you need a source for that, and I couldn't find one. I did find a source from just last month after Olympic Trials (NBC Olympics) saying he is not retiring. Gap9551 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Jack Conger[edit]

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could look into edits regarding Jack Conger's Wikipedia page. Only Lochte lied to media, implicating Conger, Bentz, and Feigen. Yes, all three were there but only Lochte spoke this lie to media and only Lochte and Feigen filed false police reports. Conger did not actively participate in Lochte's false robbery story to the police or media. In fact, current evidence makes it seem that Conger and Bentz actually tried to prevent Lochte from causing further damage. According to testimony, Lochte was the sole actor in the property damage. The current article implies that Conger was as culpable as Lochte in this scandal but the reality is that Ryan created and perpetuated the lie. I believe it would appear less biased if the article stated Conger was with Lochte and that Lochte fabricated a story involving him. Conger was not complicit in any crime and even provided successful testimony against Lochte. Conger arrived back in Miami and is on a connecting flight. It might also be worth mentioning that there was no search & seizure warrant against Bentz and Conger when they were removed from the plane. I feel Conger's article negatively implies he played a big role in Lochte's fabrication when that doesn't seem to be the case. That portion of his article should be represented by fact rather than conjecture and implication by association. At the very least, it should correctly state Lochte's role in creating the scandal rather than reading as if all four conspired.

Just my thoughts, I don't want to see anyone's reputation tarnished over a scandal created by someone else.

Thanks for your time, A Texan who has followed this story with concern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.201.193 (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you are right, and I rephrased the section to better reflect the sources, making it clear that Conger was not among the most guilty ones at least. Thanks for pointing that out, it is important that Wikipedia biographies do not contain unsourced negative content. However, the reports I read say that all swimmers may have participated in the damage, or at least are vague about who did what exactly. Do you have a source saying that Conger did not cause any damage? Then that can be further clarified. Gap9551 (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, thank you. It reads with a lot more neutrality now. Security footage released today (http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/08/19/us-swimmers-rio-gas-station-raw-video-ekr-orig-vstan.cnn) shows solely Lochte ripping a sign/poster down. No footage has been released that substantiates claims that the bathroom was trashed, broken into, or even entered. Further, both Conger and Bentz released statements today (I can link if needed) that similarly state that Ryan Lochte ripped a sign/poster down but that neither had witnessed any damage to the bathroom. My personal opinion (obviously irrelevant in regards to Wikipedia, but going off actual evidence it seems conclusive) is that the bathroom was already trashed when police investigated the situation. I imagine there would be actual evidence if any swimmer had caused damage beyond Lochte's ripping down the sign/poster shown in video. Actually surprisingly, the new footage released substantiates a lot of claims as it can be seen that the off duty police officers / security guards pull Gunnar Bentz toward the taxi with handguns drawn (albeit not pointed at Bentz at that point) at which point he appears to call over the other swimmers who come to him from off camera (as he reported in his account today). I was ready to accuse Lochte of fabricating the entire story, but seeing this footage it actually does appear that they were forcibly brought to the sitting location, Lochte stood up (per his account), Bentz and Conger attempt to pull him back, he slowly approaches the guards, they appear to draw their weapons, and footage cuts as they reach to their hips. Surprisingly to me, other than the extreme exaggeration of "taxi pulled over" and "gun to my head," Lochte's account seems marginally more factual than it appeared prior. Given the lack of evidence contrary, it does appear that they gave money to these guards under duress of firearms drawn and that the money given was in excess of the damage caused (if footage, Conger's statement, and Bentz's statements are correct in that the only witnessed damaged was a torn down sign). It also appears in this footage that the sign is not damaged or ripped, other than being torn down. Due to the poor quality of the CCTV there's no way to absolutely confirm this though. In my opinion, Brazilian officials have not released sufficient evidence to prove any damage was caused beyond the sign ripped down and Lochte's false account (however, seeing this footage I'm starting to doubt this would even constitute a false police report in most countries).
Beyond the footage linked, Conger and Bentz's statements are likely the best place to start in regards to looking into this issue. Feigen was also issued a further fine today, paid to a government controlled charity if he ever returns to Brazil, which may be of relevance to another article.
I'll run through the footage with as much brevity as possible since it's a bit confusing. CCTV footage begins as you can see Conger enter the alleyway and an employee follows behind him (Conger in a dark shirt), Feigen is in the alleyway (blue shirt, right), along with Gunnar Bentz (white pants) and Lochte (bleached hair). It can be seen that Lochte crossed from the left to the right, towards Feigen, and appears to make a movement consistent with ripping down a sign or poster. The poster can then be seen on the ground, evidencing Lochte ripped it down. Back in the station, the four enter with Conger in the back. Gunnar Bentz enters the passenger seat of the taxi, James Feigen enters and goes to the far right back seat, Lochte is in the middle seat, and Conger is in the left back seat. As they are beckoned out of the taxi, Conger and Lochte walk off camera while Feigen appears to be either shuffling through his wallet or on his phone. Bentz is seen on camera talking to the off duty police officers / security guards and is eventually grabbed and moved toward the taxi. It's unclear if guns are drawn by the guards at this point but it appears that way. Bentz calls over the teammates and they all comply and move back to the taxi. Once they've been sat down in the last clip (Bentz left, Lochte middle, Conger right) they are approached by the same guards as before who are mostly partially obscured by the camera. The clip cuts when Lochte stands up (as per all statements by the swimmers), Bentz and Conger grab him in an attempt to get him to sit back down, Lochte approaches the guards, and the guards appear to reach toward their hips, conclusive of what may have been weapons drawn if the clip weren't cut short.
Once again, thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.201.193 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
We cannot interpret the footage ourselves though, we have to go by what reliable sources say happened. The cameras may not have captured everything, including sound. For example, in his own statement, Conger admits to urinating on their property, which probably counts as vandalism. I understand that the guns were drawn merely to detain them while waiting for the police, and that the swimmers were eager to pay for the damage to leave and keep the police out of it. This source reports the swimmers said "Please, please, no police." That does not sound like a robbery – people who are being robbed usually want the police to come. I updated the article with his own statement for more balanced coverage. Gap9551 (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Proxima b[edit]

Hello! It is the first time I go to a talk page, so please accept my apologies if it is not the usual way to converse and debate on issues. I was surprised by your unilateral corrections. You said that adding facts such as the main contributor (ESO), both in fundings and manpower (see the various nationality and institution origins of the nature article contributors) is not contributive while the fact that it was the result of an international consortium seems for me to be very relevant. I am a tenured scientist and focusing on only one leading person is a terrible way to destroy the cooperation principle in any science work and it is very harmful. So, can you bring back this very small addition, please? Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.124.148 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your interest in improving the article. If ESO is the main funder of the project, that would be worth mentioning in the lead if cited, and preferably using their common name rather than the official name. But you merely wrote that they 'announced' it, which is not that noteworthy without further context. I'll try to add it myself if I can cite it; you have a valid point about a consortium being important here. Also, you wrote about a Pale Blue Dot, which is not the correct name of the team. The name of the team is not widely known outside this discovery, and does not seem very important for the lead. We have to be strict about correct and relevant information in the right places of the article, especially since this article is prominently listed on the Main Page right now, which is why I removed it. Thanks for bringing it up here and explaining your reasons. Gap9551 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I added to the lead that it is an ESO team. Gap9551 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Gap9551. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles for the rest of the swimmers[edit]

Hi Gap9551,

Since you're contributing more often in swimming at the recent Olympic Games, may I ask you an honest favor if you can create the redlinked articles for the remaining swimmers in each event? Kindly use infobox swimmer for each and every swimmer in their respective articles. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for reviewing and accepting my edit here that I made where I removed poorly sourced info that was tagged for over one year without improvement: LINK. Thanks for looking over my edit ! Have a great day, 69.50.69.34 (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for your work. Gap9551 (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I was surprised that there was some info in a few articles I noticed where the factual claims were not backed up by good references for so long. The dated tags were all over one year old. Thanks again, 69.50.69.34 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
You are right. In fact, especially in biographies of living persons, poorly sourced content that you think is wrong should be removed right away. But there are many articles and it's hard to keep all of them up to standard. Gap9551 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with you on that one. I hope my edits removing poorly sourced content that I removed were all good. Hopefully if anyone is curious I left some explanations explaining why I did them. 69.50.69.34 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I had a look and your edits look fine. Thanks for using edit summaries, a very good habit. Gap9551 (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I've seen sometimes a culture against IPs and stuff so I wanted to make sure I explained my stuff when removing stuff that wasn't backed up by any stuff at all or backed up by poorly sourced stuff. 69.50.69.34 (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
If you remove content, there's a chance you'd be reverted without much thought if you don't explain what you're doing and if your intention is not clear. On the other hand, if you say it's unsourced material, it is not even allowed for someone to revert you, as they would be restoring unsourced information that has been challenged (edit: unless they provide a source, of course). Gap9551 (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
If you think content may be correct, by the way, looking for and adding a reliable source is better than removing content. Gap9551 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

H+Pedia[edit]

Hi there, as a member of Wikiproject transhumanism, I thought you might want to check out the latest on H+Pedia which now has a revamped home page as an introduction point. :) https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Deku-shrub (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I only act on minor typos, possible missing links as I come across them. I was very pleased to be able to correct an erroneous link on a botanical subject a couple of years ago by tracking down the authority himself. Trivial stuff but it fits my OCD! If I ever feel the need to push the boat out further I will consult first.

Kind regards Martin 86.8.45.61 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the African Destubathon[edit]

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy Account Birthday![edit]

I wanted to wish you happy birthday for your account! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow thanks! Also for reminding me. Gap9551 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Gap9551. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Thanks! Gap9551 (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia[edit]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Oxford spelling[edit]

Re Nice attack spellings: Oxford spelling is a perverse variant of English spelling used almost exclusively by OUP which uses ize endings. Some editors on WP insist it is 'British' and whilst it's a legit variant of UK spelling, it certainly isn't standard. I grew up and was educated in Oxford, but had never heard of it until I edited WP (I must have assumed it was US spelling whenever I encountered it).

Being Oxford, it could not possibly justify this deviation from the norm by a sensible logic (like US), that it is phonetically more accurate, no the reason is that it more closely resembles the Greek root! Bah! Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; -ise has my preference too as far as British spelling is concerned. But worse than any spelling version is when editors revert others because for an unstated reason they want to use both versions in the same article, and subsequently avoid discussion when asked about this. Gap9551 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with a source[edit]

Hello Gap! :)

Can you help me with something? Only if you have the time of course. Thank you.Csknowitall (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I made a mistake and didn't create a new headline, sorry for that.Csknowitall (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! No problem, I moved the headline up. What source do you need help with? Gap9551 (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's about the articles 'FINA Water Polo World League', 'Water polo at the World Aquatics Championships', 'FINA Water Polo World Cup' and 'European Water Polo Championship'. The problem is, many serbians go on these articles and claim that FINA makes Serbia the inheritor of Yugoslavia's medals, which is does not. They won't allow me to change the medal table to seperate Yugoslavia and Serbia. As you see in the source they provided themselves. A source which is quite hard to figure out. Also in some articles they just change the medal counts without any source at all. This has been a problem in FIBA world cup as well, as in Handball articles. What can we do about this problem? because they source provided on those articles, an official statement by FINA themselves, Does NOT give Serbia the medals of Yugoslavia at all, as you can see in the source, it doesn't even give Serbia the medals won for Serbia & Montenegro. Wikipedia is about following the source, right? and this is not just any source, this is FINA themselves. I just know if I change the medal table, some serbian will revert it, I can guarantee that. It's the source provided called "WATER POLO MEDALLISTS AND STATISTICS". Thank you so muchCsknowitall (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, that it's page 15 in the source link provided. They clearly don't give Serbia the medals. Also Water polo at the olympics, that articles is a problem as well. Csknowitall (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply . I think that a reliable source stating which countries are considered continuations of another country is needed to combine medal counts from different countries, either sources in the context of Water Polo, or in a more general sports or even political context. Ideally the medal table would be directly provided by a reliable source. If that's not the case, countries should be listed separately unless sources dictate otherwise. You can confirm whether this is indeed the consensus, and get help in general, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Handball, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports. If editors don't use reliable sources, then such medal combinations can be reverted. If anyone reverts your edit and you believe they are wrong, don't start an edit war. First discuss with the editors involved using reasonable arguments on the talk pages of those articles or user talk pages, then ask help from the Wikiprojects I listed, and if still needed, follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, in particular see the options listed here, which involve help from outsiders. Gap9551 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.1[edit]

Newsletter Nr 1 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the very first newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, see below)

Progress report:

Since the Projects very first edit 9 december 2002 by User:Dan Koehl, which eventually became the WikiProject Genealogy, different templates were developed, and the portal Portal:Genealogy was founded by User:Michael A. White in 2008. Over the years a number of articles has been written, with more or less association to genealogy. And, very exciting, there is a proposal made on Meta by User:Another Believer to found a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, read more at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project where you also can support the creation with your vote, in case you havnt done so already.

Future:

The future of the Genealogy project on the English Wikipedia, and a potential creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input.

You can

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy founder and coordinator Dan Koehl

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery Dan Koehl (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.2[edit]

Newsletter Nr 2 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the second newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

Progress report:

In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well talking in chat mode about the potential new wiki, a new irc channel has been setup, and you are welcome to visit and try it out at: #wikimedia-genealogyconnect

(In case you are not familiar with IRC, or would prefer some info and intro, please see Wikipedias IRC tutorial)

At m:Talk:Wikimedia_genealogy_project#Wikimedia_user_group is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia user group: please submit comments and suggestions, and whether you would like to be a member in such a group. Prime goal for the group is the creation of a new, free, genealogy wiki, but there is also a discussion weather we should propose a new project or support the adoption of an existing project?

Read more at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project where you also can support the creation with your vote, in case you haven't done so already.

Future:

The future of the Genealogy project, and creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input.

You can

Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Milankovitch cycles[edit]

I have just reverted your edit of 17 February, which rephrased 'fixed stars' as '"fixed" (distant) stars'. The reason for my revert is that the shorter term is also used in the preceding section. I would prefer that both say 'fixed stars' or 'distant stars' and don't care which, though the nature of those stars is not the topic of the article and doesn't deserve any real attention. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's worth clarifying a potentially confusing term at least somewhere. I now see that Fixed stars has its own article, so I linked the first occurrence. Gap9551 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
As for your edit summary, "the southern hemisphere's seasonal irradiation is more variable" is more precise than "the southern hemisphere's seasons are relatively more extreme" since the latter does not state what aspect of seasons is "relatively more extreme" (e.g. irradiation, temperature, etc). Gap9551 (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Genealogy project need your vote for creation of an email list[edit]

Newsletter Nr 3 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the third newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

Request:

In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well as taking new, important steps towards a creation of a new project site, we need to make communication between the users easier and more effective.

At Mail list on meta is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia email list. In order to request the creation of such a list, we need your voice and your vote.

In order to create a new list, we need to put a request it in Phabricator, and add a link to reasoning/explanation of purpose, and link to community consensus. Therefore we need your vote for this now, so we can request the creation of the mail list.

Read more about this email list at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project mail list where you can support the creation of the mail list with your vote, in case you haven't done so already.

Future:

Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.4: Mail list created![edit]

Newsletter Nr 4, 2017-03-24, for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the fourth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

Mail list is created:

The project email list is now created and ready to use!

Please feel free to subscribe at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy

Future:

Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Visual editor and magic words[edit]

Thanks for this fix to Less-than sign. I had been tempted to do the same thing, but I held off because I was flummoxed as to how a magic word could have been added by way of the visual editor. I don't have any experience with the visual editor on Wikipedia, so I'm coming at this from a place of ignorance, but I'm wondering if the edit you had to undo was more likely a glitch in the editor than a mistake on the part of the user. Any thoughts? —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 17:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I don't know, but I'm not familiar with the visual editor. Gap9551 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Record against top-10 players[edit]

Either we have to spell it out in the heading that these are ATP Davis Cup, and ITF Grand Slam tournament only records or they should include all official events. It was a sanctioned ITF win that the ITF includes. I went ahead and fixed the section header on that and the next section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You are right. I believe it is a convention to leave out Hopman Cup, Challengers, Futures, and qualifications from these head-to-head lists, so they cover the same matches as those included in the match win and loss records. But this was not made clear at all in the article; thanks for noticing and fixing that. I'm not necessarily against expanding the range if we do it across the board. Gap9551 (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I thought i should let you know someone keeps removing Virginia McLaurin and reverting your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_living_centenarians&diff=782636778&oldid=782635336 on the List of living centenarians page. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I replied in the discussion on the talk page. Gap9551 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I never thanked you for your welcome![edit]

So thank you Gap9551! I've just posted my first Talk Page query - Martin Peter Clarke (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad you're still active here. Good question, I replied on your talk page. Gap9551 (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Hey! (as the title states Face-tongue.svg) For the article Yellow-bellied marmot, even though it is a good article, the plus symbol does not seem to be there. Could you help out? Thanks a bunch. Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I added it. Congratulations on the GA. Gap9551 (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, buddy! Face-smile.svg Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Tennis players with most titles in the Open Era[edit]

The article clearly states: "Only titles won during the era are included here, though entire spans are listed for careers that started before 1968." Rovingrobert (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that can be confusing. "Span" here means just the full range in years during which a player won titles, even when this range extends to before the start of the Open Era. The title counts themselves are Open Era only. The spans indicate that for certain players, the listed Open Era counts are not their career totals. Gap9551 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, my bad. I guess there is no pre-Open Era article because the full stats are simply not available. Rovingrobert (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

FYI, for an example, open an edit window on the lead of Global warming and examine the wikicode following the phrase "climate change" in the first sentence. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that. It's helpful for premature updates of tennis rankings, for example. Gap9551 (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A proposal to delete the Gonzales-Rosewall rivalry[edit]

Have you seen that???? Madness! Let's rally all the troops to defeat it! Thanks! Hayford Peirce (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi again! As I've written to other editors: Hi, I've seen you working on many tennis articles over the years, and you also made some edits to the Gonzales-Rosewall rivalry article. There are some people who want to delete it for reasons that elude me. Some of us are now voting to Keep or Delete at the bottom of the main discussion of this at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gonzales%E2%80%93Rosewall_rivalry. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at this discussion and then add your own vote to the bottom. Many thanks, and all the best! Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for reverting the Bjorn Borg article here I had the same problem earlier last week with another IP user doing the same thing despite me explaining.--Navops47 (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a clarifying note. Reading edit summaries would go a long way! Gap9551 (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Notifications[edit]

Hi Gap9551, I received some notifications like this:"There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password." What do I do? I think I have a strong password--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Luke, fortunately they were not able to get into your account. You probably have these messages enabled in your Preferences, at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo, "Login from an unfamiliar device". You can disable it there if you want. However, if it doesn't happen too often, you can also allow those messages as a reminder to maintain a strong password. Gap9551 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, bye bye :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Gap9551. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Debate of the yearly number one rankings[edit]

@Conwaymarty:, a lot of what you're saying has merit and I'd happily discuss things in a normal way. First of all, I'm not a moderator, just a regular Wikipedia editor like you.
Nobody says Djokovic is considered equal to Nadal in 2013. The ATP #1 ranking carries most weight (nowadays at least, but this has changed over time), maybe that needs to be clarified in the article? But the ITF choice cannot be ignored, both need to be mentioned.
Next, I did not revert your edit regarding Lendl and Agassi in 1990. Just the 2013 part about Nadal/Djokovic. In the ITF World Champions article I only reverted you because you removed sourced content and replaced it with the unsourced statement ... a major surprise, and one generally disregarded as a poor and unjustifiable choice by all. "major surprise" needs a source, and "by all" is a weasel word, it would needs clarification which experts think so. If you avoid such statements I don't have objections to rephrasing things.
Finally, I agree that Vilas should be mentioned as possible #1 for 1977. I never reverted you when you made that edit. Do you know good sources that discuss the complicated 1977 situation? Gap9551 (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I was unneccessarily rude and I did not know you were an editor. In the past the editor have monopolized those pages and taken anything down for being poorly sourced when they often provide no sources and their arguments are full of inconsistencies.

However the main thing that needs to be pointed out is there is simply no way to justify giving Djokovic joint value for #1 in 2013 just due to the controversial ITF award, and putting Lendl as not even runner up for 1990 with the ITF award, or indeed not atleast equal #1 as well. It is a fact the 2013 decision was much more greatly criticized in the tennis community than the 1990 one, it is not even in question. Statements such as only the 1990 decision was controversial as listed on the rankings by year page did not even come with a single source and were just as much unverified opinions (and in this case a very wrong one) as anything I said. Nadal did not win a match in 2 slams that year, but same for Edberg in 1990, and he lost 1st round in 2 different slams which if anything is even worse, and of course unlike Nadal he did not win more slams than Lendl, and such a thing as he probably would have won the 1990 Australian Open final over Lendl if he were not injured (which I fully agree with) is meaningless conjecture and going completely off basis of any objective means of what should be considered. So in the event Djokovic were given equal credit for #1 in 2013 based on the highly controversial ITF decision, Lendl would have to get atleast that in 1990. And likewise if Lendl is not given atleast partial credit as the #1 for 1990 with Edberg, then it is impossible to ever give Djokovic equal credit for #1 in 2013. If anything it would be justified giving Lendl equal #1 for 2013 and not giving Djokovic equal credit for 2013, but at the bare minimum Lendl would need to be given as much credit for 1990 as Djokovic in 2013, and more would also be justified. Less compartively for Lendl is not justifiable, and a scenario of listing ITF Champion Lendl as not even the runner up for 1990 and controversial ITF Champion Djokovic as equal #1 of 2013 is laughably absurd, and again it was not justifed by a quote which atleast the ITF World Champions page did have quoting credible sources, but instead a completely unverified opinion with no reference, and ripe with inconsistency which I already explained. It was obviously done so by someone with a personal agenda of sorts that represents false and inconsistent information and reasoning that was allowed to stand. So in short:

1. Agassi as runner up in 1990. Absolutely not justified. A mere ONE source (France Tennis Magazine) putting Agassi 2nd to Lendls 3rd overcoming the ITF naming Lendl its World Champion and Lendl officialy ranked 2nd to Agassis 5th, and Lendl winning a slam that year which Agassi did not, and every other verifiable source placing Lendl above (usually by more than 1 placement) cannot be justified, and by that logic every year Tennis Magazine France named someone 2nd they would have to be listed as that years runner up which would create some real doozies. This was clearly based on a patented agenda to try and emphasize even more in hyperbole in the opinion of one person how Lendl was nowhere near a #1 worthy in 1990.

2. Djokovic as co champion of 2013. Iffy at best, and can only be considered if Lendl is atleast rated co champion of 1990 based on his ITF award, if you are going to give that kind of credit to Djokovics far more controversial ITF award.

3. Lendl not getting partial credit as co champion of 1990. Again given the credence of the ITF award which you pointed out yourself, this is a suspect choice too. And most importantly if Djokovic is to be rated co champion of 2013, then that alone should make Lendl as co champion of 1990 automatic, and even without Djokovic named as co champion of 2013, it would still be justifable and arguable.

Conwaymarty (talk) 17:31, December 7 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's clearly wrong to list Lendl as runner-up (or lower) in 1990 while listing Djokovic as co-champion in 2013. I also agree that Agassi is not in the top 2 in 1990 by any reasonable argument (ATP, ITF, slam titles). My preference would be to list Edberg/Lendl as co-champions in 1990, and Nadal/Djokovic in 2013, because I believe that the article overall tries to identify the players who have a "reasonable argument" at being considered champion for a given year (i.e., who have at least one credible organization backing them). That doesn't means that each of those sources have equal weight (Nadal is generally considered the "real" #1 for 2013, with Djokovic's argument significantly weaker). But a weaker argument is still an argument; the ITF is not irrelevant, and it would quickly become complicated to judge the relative importance of ATP/ITF/certain magazines for each year.
The other option you suggest, to list Lendl as co-champion for 1990 along with Edberg, and Djokovic as runner-up to Nadal for 2013, is harder to defend, since both Lendl and Djokovic have the same ITF behind them, unless sources clearly back up this interpretation (for example, if ATP ranking is considered more important in 2013 than it was in 1990).
P.S. Lendl was ranked ATP #3 and Agassi #4 in 1990, but that doesn't change your points at all. Gap9551 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Beyond what I have already said I believe Nadal should not be sharing #1 custody with Djokovic in 2013 since in no situation where a guy ended ranked #1, won more slams (2 to 1), and several more touranments (10 to 7) should that person not be the #1 rated. Even in a case like this one major award (ITF) goes to the other.

I believe on the other hand Lendl probably should be co #1 with Edberg for 1990 since winning the ITF award, spending most of the year ranked #1 (when Edberg ended 1989 ranked in the top 3), both winning 1 slam, and Edberg losing 1st round at 2 different slams while Lendl won or lost to the eventual winner in all 3 he played is more than good enough to merit this.

I think only the year-end ranking counts, not being ranked #1 during the year, because that's partly based on points from the previous year. But more importantly, we should be careful to make our own criteria about who deserves to be #1. An important thing on Wikipedia is that we need sources to back content, we should follow the sources that we consider to have most authority. Gap9551 (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

1977 is too inconclusive to just give solely to Borg, with many experts picking Vilas as the top player that year, and some others Borg. It should be shared between Vilas and Borg, if not even a 3 way between Vilas, Borg, and Connors given that Connors was the official ATP ranked #1, and there being no clear consensus of the rightful #1 that year anyway, even if Vilas and Borg each have more support than Connors has.

If we are consistent, Connors should be included per his ATP #1. Normally it'd be Borg and Connors, but there have been significant claims and publicity that the ATP ranking was wrong and that Vilas should have been #1, so a three-way tie seems appropriate to me. Gap9551 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

McEnroe should also probably be given runner up status for 1982 given that he was the official #1 ranked. There is no other year the #1 ranked officialy was not atleast given runner up status for the year. And Lendl who was given runner up status did not win a slam that year so ranked 3rd should not be given credit as that years runner up over #1 ranked McEnroe, even if some (although not all) aspects of his year were better than Mcenroe, and he did well against him head to head that year. Conwaymarty (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


I have seen many good sources discussing 1977. It has been a long time since I saw them or discussed that year, but I will try and dig some up again and leave them on your page if I find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conwaymarty (talkcontribs) 23:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, and let's continue this discussion on Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players. We are just two editors interested in this article but there are several more. Even if we reach consensus, others may disagree and revert. Gap9551 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please, I need your help![edit]

Hi Gap9551,

I had created the WiFi map Wikipedia article 2 or 3 days ago, but something is wrong due to this article it is not being shown on the internet.

The article was adequately addressed following Wikipedia instructions, (I removed several Buzzwords and possible advertising content), but I am afraid that I committed a mistake in the publishing process or it still something wrong.

Please, I require your advice, I`d like to finish this publication now when I have with some free time.

I'd really appreciate your help in this!

Regards,

--Fergus_Manx 16:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceMAN (talkcontribs)

Hi @SpaceMAN: the article appears on Wikipedia: WiFi Map. Gap9551 (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Help with a vandal[edit]

Hi, can you help me with user Ashwani8888? He continues to insert fake informations & views on page List of most-viewed YouTube videos, he won't stop. You can watch also his talk page, thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I will keep an eye on the article. Thanks for your careful work. (PS. Are you sure it's 'he' and 'his'? They don't say so in their comments.) Gap9551 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Ashwani8888 says YOU are a vandal, not him, look here. Could you block him, please?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
And he did another personal attack (to me), please block him--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I gave them a warning for those attacks. By the way, I'm not an administrator and I cannot block anyone. If the vandalism continues, we will follow the established procedures. That is, giving the appropriate series of warnings and when those run out, report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Then, an admin will consider the case and decide what needs to be done. Hopefully it won't get to that point. Gap9551 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
There is also the three revert rule. Even if not vandalism, it is not allowed for anyone to make 4 or more reverts in a single article within 24 hours (separated by edits from other users). Gap9551 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, so if he continues I will report him--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

arXiv[edit]

Thanks for trying, at least. My patience ran out earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your knowledge about the arXiv process. At least I learned a few things from the discussion. Gap9551 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Tony Parker[edit]

Hello,

I am confused, why are you reverting my edits when they are factually correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsBiographies (talkcontribs) 06:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@SportsBiographies: Why do you believe they were correct when they disagree with sources, and you didn't provide a new source supporting your 'facts'? Can you give me a reliable source saying Parker was born in Bordeaux, and that his father was African? (which would be too unspecific, by the way, even if it were true) Gap9551 (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ranges of biblical verse[edit]

Hi, in Tenebrae for example, lines in the table contain bible verse ranges that can't work:

...................Maundy Thursday.........Good Friday....................Holy Saturday

1st lesson...Lamentations 1:1–1:5...Lamentations 2:8–2:11...Lamentations 3:22–3:30

The script is

| 1st lesson |Lamentations 1:1–1:5 |Lamentations 2:8–2:11 |Lamentations 3:22–3:30

The first link tries to parse Lamentations 1:11:5.

I cannot find a solution yet that will work on BibleGateway.

Martin Peter Clarke (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the first link shows "Lamentations 1:1-5", is that not correct? The link seems to work as it should according to Template:Bibleverse. Gap9551 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It doesn't work in IE but does in Firefox. As it worked for you I thought I'd better try a different browser. Martin Peter Clarke (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
What goes wrong in IE? Does it link to the wrong webpage? Gap9551 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
In IE Lamentations 1:11:5 comes up in the Bible Gateway search page giving NO RESULT FOUND Martin Peter Clarke (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.5 -2017[edit]

Newsletter Nr 5, 2017-12-30, for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the fifth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

A demo wiki is up and running!

Dear members of WikiProject Genealogy, this will be the last newsletter for 2017, but maybe the most important one!

You can already now try out the demo for a genealogy wiki at https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki/Main_Page and try out the functions. You will find parts of the 18th Pharao dynasty and other records submitted by the 7 first users, and it would be great if you would add some records.

And with those great news we want to wish you a creative New Year 2018!


Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Mersenne Prime etc[edit]

Not my area, but I have to agree that we need more than a blog posting of an unpublished and as yet not fully determined value before we can use this. Meters (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's necessary to confirm these discoveries on at least two different systems, with different processors, operating systems etc. I'm a bit surprised that GIMPS even announces a preliminary discovery on their homepage. I believe it has happened at least once that verification failed. Gap9551 (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

World's First Atomic Bomb NOT Dropped on Japan?[edit]

The end of the third para of Tennessee says,

"...Oak Ridge. This city was established to house the Manhattan Project's uranium enrichment facilities, helping to build the world's first atomic bomb, which was dropped on Imperial Japan near the end of World War II."

which is only factually correct if the Trinity test device Gadget is not considered to be a bomb, which the first italicized link would contradict.

The simplest solution would be to refer to bombs plural and ('two' or 'the second and third' of) which were dropped?

Martin Peter Clarke (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it following your suggestion. Feel free to edit the text yourself to improve it further. Gap9551 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)